if you are going to spend moneys on things that don't help me, i prefer you don't spend the money. if you do things that people like, and you explain to them there are thing that is people like, you may eat off of the pressure on you spending the money. i do believe the deficit issue is not really the driving issue of the american public right now. >> i think the president is doing -- can we fix it? i think the president is doing doing -- i do think the obama m -- administration understands the issue is a long-term problem. i think they understand the public has a certain amount of political energy around this issue in the short term. they are doing what they can to address it in the context of individual policies. and whether that's -- whether that's the -- you know, these issues of bipartisan commission or freezing domestic spending, things that we all can sit

around the table and look at and say in the long term they aren't going to have that big of an impact. they do big the impression that the president is starting to take them on. since we are talking about politics, i will stay in the real. we know ultimately, it's going to be bigger issues with taxes, a lot of thing that is benefit a lot of people. which mean that is people are going to have to give up things that they like. that is something that politicians never like to do. you don't like taking food out of anyone's mouth. to do that, there would be a couple of things that require. like most people, politicians operate about three impulses. fear, hope, complacency, they are either afraid they are going to lose their job, they are hopeful that they are going to get a job, they don't want to rock the boat because with people seem to be just fine the way things are. something is going to have to impact that, whether it's an external problem that we had in

9/11 or that i would argue the president did not capitalize on that moment to really marshal the country to take on any big challenge that would have a long-term impact anyone going to afghanistan which i don't hardly support it. but it also happens that there may be an external challenge to the political system. we may be seeing that in the tea party movements. now as a democrat, i'm not larly impressed by the politics of the tea party movement for the most part. but what i do think is having lived through -- i worked for bill clinton when he ran for president in 9192, i saw the impact that ross perot had, there may be a moment if they are good for anything, they can make an argument on deficits they can force politicians that operate out of fear to do something that will have a longer lasting impact. but i'll close with this.

that i think ultimately our problems are bigger. in the time that i spent traveling the country until last year, until 2008, what i detected was something different, much more fundamental. the american people are very aware of something that they can't quite find a way to put into words. but the greatness of america is somewhere like sand in someone's hand at the beach. they feel like it's slipping through their functioners. they -- through their fingers. they are looking for someone, some political force, that will deal honestly with with grabbing the sand and putting it all back today. they feel it not just for themselves, but for their children. he's having a tough like right now, but john edwards talked about this, with two americas, bob graham who is a much more wholesome figure, talking about

the one america concept that people feel as if they are being asked to sacrifice something while other people are getting something. if you've looked back to the corp rational behind the obama candidacy, i don't think it's any particular policy or political bend. it wasn't a return of liberalism it was the sense of starting from 2004 convention speech that we're all in this together. if we were not red states and blue states and black america and white america, we could all come together and deal with the core problems. whether that's energy, education system, is he failing their children, the competition with china or india that people are really detecting or the long-term issues are debt and deficit. they want someone who's going to pull the country together to handle these problems. as a country, i would argue that we are like an athlete or team in need of going to training camp. but somebody has too explain to

us what the end result is, what does the victory party look like when we get out of training camp? i do think, norm, if someone marshaled the country, if he did in 2004, 2008 in his campaign, he started to sketch out a notion that we could deal with the problems and i'll be the straight one to talk to you about them. in the last year, i would argue that they have started to talk about component pieces of fixing them without really wrapping it into with kind of unified theory of what it's all for. and until we get back to the place of what it's all for, we're all going to argue about the small pieces and, i don't think we're going to get very far. to paraphrase winston churchill, i have great confidence in america. we tend toot the right thing after exhausting all the other options. i think we'll get this

eventually. >> great. the lessons are learned are constantly the wrong withed ones. so we had a no new tax pledge that now both parties have adopted, just no new taxes for anyone less than $250,000. when president bush was trying to move forward on social security reform, the democrats ended up with we don't like to plan. we don't want to see the president have a win on this. the republicans said the same thing, we don't like this plan. we don't see him win on this. we're not going to play at all. same thing with the commission. we saw sort of whether you believe this is motivation or not, on the republicans there was more of the starve the beast. now a lot of republicans look at what's going on with democrats and say you are feeding the beast. you're trying to make parts of the stimulus permanent before we fix the budget situation. unfortunately, it seems like the

lesson that each party learned is the one that those of us who were worried about the budget was not the ones that were learned. the lesson that i learned is everybody has done a great job. i will not make a question out of that. but i am curious how one turns the tide that you start having the lessons that reenportion fiscal responsibility if you want to slip that into your answer. when housekeeping, they start getting served. if people clear off their tables. i think we'll take a couple of questions at a time, turn over to panellest, and turn overto the keynote speaker. so, yes, and yes. >> the deficit year for the americans, 13% of gdp, it's election pending with the general expectations the conservatives can win, how can the uk reduce this massive budget without going after things like health care spending, exception, the issue that is we've talked about here in the u.s. this morning. the further question, do you

think the parliamentary system can address more accountive will the american system with separation of powers and different branches of government? >> please take a couple of questions before we answer. >> i was just curious if you can comment on any ideas about how to get back to more sociability and interaction among congress people. >> oh, please. go ahead. >> i'm sorry. just quickly on britain and the issue of parliamentary system better? british has a bigger budget deficit right now that the u.s. has a colossal fiscal problem, the british star parliamentary system is you know who to blame. you know, the government -- a british politician said an british system is elective

dictatorship. once you have a government in place, the government can do more or less as it pleases. there are no checks and balances. as long as the government has a parliamentary majority, it can do what it wants to. so one government or the other is going to have to solve this problem. and i think neither party is yet come up with a very plausible account of what's going to happen. the fact that so many european countries are in such huge fiscal difficulty, i think does tell you to subtract a little bit from the creditability that you would otherwise give to the view that the american politics is uniquely broken and this is a particular kind of american form of paralysis. much more -- much less democrat systems in europe. they seem to have even bigger problems in dealing with fiscal difficulties than the u.s. >> on the question of what can

be done to bring social account back to the congress. i wish i had some easy or good answers to that other than to simply repeat the problem that i see there, to make people spend more time, to not be going back to their district and spending as much time on fund raising. they travel -- before the days of jet travel, they came, brought their families, and socialized on the weekend. that tunnel happen today. people go back to the district. when i first came here, almost all, a lot of members had their families here in washington. today it's very rare for anybody with children to have their families here in washington. they keep them back in the district. so it's just -- it's a societal thing more than anything else, i think. but i think there are some things that can be done, leadership can reward on both sides, leadership can reward

people who go out and seek solution that is are on a bipartisan basis. and i think the leadership at very top has to start that with more contact between speaker and majority leader. again, we're talking here about the house. which is what i'm more familiar with. i think the same thing applies other in the senate as well as to how the lack of bipartisanship has developed over the years there. so i think all of these things, there's some little things that might be done. but i -- they are only going to be around the margins. i admit that a. >> let me give you a few concrete thing. recognizes that there's no panacea here, but there are actually a couple of powers things that can be done. one very simply, we could move to a five-day-a week schedule in congress. three weeks on, one week off. you come in at 9 on monday, you leave at 5 on friday afternoon

or later. if you go three weeks on and one week off, you have time to go back to the district and talk to people. but if people are here five days a week, three weeks, they are going to have a big incentive to move their families. you have going to have some elements to a policy process. you might have time to read, think, do other things. add to that one other element that becomes important. no fund raising during the three week that is you are on. what happens now if you watch what's going on the floor were or if you are watch walking around the capitol, you see the capitol hill club or democratic club or safe houses to make fund raising calls. that's not a very good way to do one's business. the third thing that people are not going to like very much, but it's important is a much more generous subsidy for housing for members of congress. they get $3,000 tax credit, you have to maintain two

households. you come here without a significant capitol base, you simply can't afford decent housing within reasonable proximity of the capitol if you have kids going to school. that's not popular. i'd like to see subsidizing house, take the other hotel turn them into apartments, you can make them, you don't have to heavily subdice them, simply make it a break even proposition and find other places. it would make a difference. you can't demonize people if you are standing next to them at the sideline of a soccer game where your kids are both with playing on opposite teams. now it's much easier. >> i think it's also -- there's the bigger issue. which is that have both parties now tend to represent monolistic districts. members of congress don't have as many republicans or democrats

are -- norm is sort of the expert on the redistricting issue. i do think we have to figure out how to create district that is have more competition between the parties so that people have an incentive to reef across the aisle that based upon their own personal social security. >> one thing the committee for responsible budget does because we we have a board that's made up, we just have simple groups get together, bipartisan to discuss public policy. and one of the things that always strikes me, we'll talk about whether it's stimulus or health care or budget. it's not a very specific specific -- we don't come out with big agreements. but the members of congress, so regularly say we wish we had more time to discuss public policy. so much of what they do really isn't at all connected to the reasons, the interest in public policy that brought them there in the first place. there are some simple things that i think could hopefully change things. we have time for a few more questions, we'll take one there, one there, and one there.

>> phil, former secretary of state of oregon. you've mentioned a major problem in one element to solve it. that's the uncompetitiveness of district, 80%, not only congress but state legislative. but you've only mentioned one possible solution. which is redistricting, if it doesn't happen in 2011, we have to wait another 10 years. i'm wondering about a second one. that's abolishing the party primary. we've reach the the point now in a party primary in states, typical turnout is 20 to 25%. that not only means the extremist of both parties are the ones that dominate, but it also means the electorate is about 65 years old on a medium age. are we surplussed that we get medicare part d? are we surprised that we can't deal with the proposals?

california has a ballot of to 10 would copy what washington state. even though someone referenced the inmates running the asylums, is that perhaps a good idea in california that could be part of the solution to get some the discipline on the fiscal side back into the equation? it would let infeints vote on a complete and equal basis and top two go to the finals regardless of which party? >> interesting, as a political independent the, i always feel left out. so that's nice. right there. did you have your hand up? >> hi, i'm barbara, respecting energy physicianing, with i was wondering if you had a notion on how to recognize seriously addressing the debt and setting a goal with coming up with some sort of semblance of health reform which from all that i read of both of the bills that passed was basically not going to the in have knack already --

vernacular bend with the cost curve at all. >> at the risk of sounded anti-democratic, called "is democracy on mechanic"? it argued that elitism is off balance in america today. i wondered if you see any risk on the emphasis of sort of the strategy to education the public, education the public. a public that we learned earlier today will laugh at you and call you a liar if you say that medicare is a public option. if so doing, are we letting our leaders off too easy, and do you think there might be something to a straight of leaders saying, you need to each your spinach, and might be be able to address the crisis much more quickly? >> great questions. unfortunately, keep your answers

short. maybe one pick one. >> let me start with phil's question and get on my favorite lobby horse. which is abolishing the party element would be great. i would like to go for mandatory voting. if you look at the australian experience, the major impact where you pay a fine of $15 if you don't vote, basically, you get 96 to 97% turnout. you can vote for none of the above. when you know that the game is no longer motivate your base to turn out, and scare the crap out of the other sides' base so that they don't turn out. instead, you know, everybody is going to be there. you focus on different issues. you aim at the middle. in fact, if we with had mandatory voting in primaries or the general election, then an issue like this would be at the forefront instead of same sex marriage, abortion, or other issue that is are designed to get the basis turned out. so it's not going to happen in

the near term. we don't like mandatory anything here. but that might do more than anything else to help the committee for responsible federal budget. >> i'll just briefly comment on a couple of the -- the idea of mandatory voting is an interesting one. i think norm has hit on something that is certainly true, it would force you to do things other than trying to motivation just their base. you know? it's one of those things that we can talk about is it feasible to do in a society like ours where we have never had such a thing as mandatory voting. i'm not sure we've had drafts. i guess maybe we could. it's going to be very difficult to do. but eliminating the partisanship of primaries, i'm not sure that will have any real impact, in my state in arizona, we went to an open primary system. of course, everybody flocked from republican, or democrat into the middle so they can vote one way or the other. it does not seem to have made

the primaryies less partisan that they have been before. you still are trying to motivate those people to over here or over here. whether they carried the registration or not. so i'm not sure that that's the answer. having said that, i don't really know what we do have as the answer. in terms of the last -- i'm going to leave the health care to somebody else. in terms of the last question are there risk in educating the public? no, i don't think there are risk. you still have to do that. yes, leadership is a key element here. leader haves to stand up, elected official haves to stand up and say this is what we have to do. i'm willing to state my political future on this. and if i'm not reelected, so be it. you know, after a while, when i was in congress, i began to realize, there are more important things than getting reelected. it's not a wad thing to come to an conclusion about that. but you have to -- but certainly

educating the public, i think, is a key part of all of this. you do need to educate the public. educating them and having them come to the right solutions. but when i stand that the politicians stands and says you have to eat your spinach, you want to give them some hope that the public is going to say well, i don't like eating that spinach. but i understand what you are telling me and why it is necessary to do so. that only comes with education. >> i'm going to pass. >> you're such a good panelist when you have a bad moderator. thank you. >> i think i trust in the point to both great. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry i ran over. and a wonderful panel. thank you. [applause] >> okay. my final housekeeping note for today is that if you -- excuse me. shh. if you have a vegetarian meal,

put up the vegetarian card. it is now my privilege to introduce the speaker. we're really thrilled to be joined by tom oc accident quirk. there's no question that monetary and fiscal policy has been closely interlinked through the whole economic crisis and what the fed has been doing is a fascinating learning experience for all of us to watch. so it must be even more fascinating to be living it. tom is also a remember of the federal reserve system open market chit tee, -- committee, and he's able to join us today to share with us his remarks, knocking on the central banks door. our deepest for coming to join us, tom. [applause]

>> all right. first of all, let my thank ma ya for inviting me here. i am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity, and i would emphasis, if i can get this upright, i think maya did invite me here because i am outside of the beltway. kansas city is smack dap in the center of the united states. in many ways, it is very central in it's thinking. it has a broad base of individuals conservative liberals. it does give awe very important prism on the world. and prism on how people see washington and what is going on there. so it is a real delight for me

to be here. and also it brings, i think, a perspective to the open market committee meeting that i do participate in. i want to also just point out that it's obviously by this panel. and i've certainly enjoyed sitting through it, that we are move into an era where the government financial is finally taking center stage, at least that's my observation. fiscal majors taken to bring the economy out of the recession, mounting longer term issues around social security and medicare and other growing demands actually put on the federal government have invited the massive built up of debt both now and as far as the eye can see. the congressional budget office projections have the federal debt reaching unsustainable levels you've heard here today, somehow between two and five

times. which leads us to the unescapable conclusion that i've heard today, the u.s. fiscal policy must focus on reducing the debt build up, and avoid the consequences of not doing so. so whop managing our nation's debt, there are three strikes strikes -- it strikes me anyway, there's three options forwards, first the worst choice in terms of our long-term statement but perhaps the easiest in terms of short-term options is that we can knock on the central bank door and request for demand that if print money to buy the amounts of public debt. or secondedly, perhaps more tolerable, but still, i think, also damaging to our economy. we can do something. so long as the domestic and forbe markets are willing to fund our boring needs at

probably, inevitable higher interest rates. or third, the most third and probably the least pallable politically. we can act now to implement programs that reduce spending and increase revenues to more sustainable levels as far as our deficit and our debt book. now i recognize that this last option involves some pretty hard choices. however, in my view, it is as others have said, the responsible path to sustainable growth and the alternatives options, i think, lead to financial crisis and greater long-run losses in our national income and wealth of this nation. the question of what combination of spending and revenue actions a country might choose is of the the per view of the congress and the central branch. as a banker, i look at it as my

responsibility to avoid an unchecked expansion of the debt may have on monetary policy itself. it is a fact that the current outlook for fiscal policy poses, i think, a real threat to the federal reserve's ability to achieve it's dual mandates of price stability and maximum sustainable long-term growth. and therefore, it is a threat to it's independence as well. the founders of the federal reserve, i think, understood this conflict. they understand that placing the printing press with the power to spend was a formula for financial disaster. aware of this danger, they designed our central bank to be responsible and long-term growth. emphasis on long term. and they gave it a degree of independence so that it can carry out the mandate. the goal of policy cannot be just to get through the current challenge. but rather to rebuild a foundation of a stable and

prosperous economy. looking at our long run future. that's in this context that i appreciate and welcome from maya, the opportunity to address our fiscal challenges and the impact on policy. so lessons from history. well, throughout history there are many examples of severe fiscal strains leading to major inflation. it seems inevitable that the government turns to it's central bank to bridge budget short falls. with the result of being too rapid of money creation and eventually, and not immediately, that's one of the elements of it. but eventually to higher inflation. such outcomes require either a cooperative central bank or infringement on it's independence. while many perhaps most nations assert the importance and benefits of an independent central bank, the fact is when the -- when pressure's mount, the immediate kind of overwhelms the long-term goals and the

independence becomes an expedient to be fore gone. now german hyperinflation is one classic example and with good reason. when i was first became a president on the federal reserve bank in kansas city in is the 91, my 85 year old neighbor gave me a $500,000 german note. he has been in germany during the hyperinflation. and he told me that in 1921, that note he thought would buy a good home, in 192 3, it wouldn't buy a loaf of bread. i want you to have this note as a reminder. your duty is to protect the value of the currency. :

and the vietnam war, contributed to a period of accelerating price increases. although the federal reserve was reluctant participant perhaps, it accepted the view that monetary policy should work in the same direction as congressional and administration's goals

and help finance at least part of the spending programs. monetary policy accommodation during this period contributed to an increase in inflation from roughly 1 1/2% in 1965 to 6% in 1970 and also helped in my view, to stage ourselves the great inflation of the '70s as inflation expectations eventually became unanchored. last friday, and it was mentioned again today, i that an economist from the imf raised the question whether central banks should target the higher rate of inflation of around six percent i think was mentioned. while this may sound a reasonable theory from a credible economist my concern it is the process of rationalizing solutions to short-term problems that too long and too often have effects on our policy path going forward that can be and usually are harmful.

today, the united states is benefiting from the policies that were established in the 1980s to end the great inflation. confidence in the long run-stability of the u.s. economy and the federal reserves commitment to price stability have kept defor treasuries relatively strong, to allow the government to borrow from low interest rates from citizens here and around the world but i think it would be a mistake to take this current ability for granted and do nothing to address the mounting debts. while the last 30 years have been relatively stable, at least until recently, our long term history with debt is less reassuring. from world war ii to the present, nominal federal debt held by the public has increased over 30 fold, and supported by steady growth in the money supply, the price level has increased by a factor of 12.

to me that a huge increase in the general price level and it represents a significant reduction in purchasing power of the dollar over time. these are matters that demand our attention, as we make choices involving the fiscal path forward, and its impact and demands it will place on monetary policy of the the immediate concern is the size of the deficit. the cbo projects the deficit was almost 12% of gdp in fist call 09. will be almost 8% this year. in entire history of the united states have run deficits over 10% of gdp in only a few instances and usually during the immediate period of a war or following it. as troubling as these deficits appear, more disconcerting the long-term outlook for the fed debt

caused by accumulation these deficits over time. the cbo's long term projections clearly show that the current fiscal policies are unsustainable. we have all heard that. one scenario the liftoff point for federal debt, that is the time when debt starts rising without a sign of stablizing occurs shortly after 2020 and by 2035, federal debt held by the public reaches 80% of our gross domestic product, a level only exceeding or just after world war ii. in another more pessimistic scenario, the liftoff in debt has only begun. or i should say has already begun. the federal debt held by the public reaching 181% of gdp in 2035, easily exceeding the peak of that ratio of 11 percent at the end of world war ii. key part of the problem stems from rapid growth in

entitlement spending. we've heard that. including spending on social security and especially care. over the next 30 years the government accounting office has estimated the present value of future extend on all social insurance programs exceeds future revenue by over $50 trillion. that is nearly four times the size of our gdp and is clearly unsustainable. adding to my concerns though for the nation's economic prospects is the current level of private indebtedness. as with government debt in the united states, private, non-financial debt, has grown steadily over the post-world war ii period, from 20% of gdp, in 1945, to 15% in 2009. every consumer and business that is -- 175%. is a net borrower would benefit from lower interest rates. just as noteworthy it should be not escape our notice

that rising inflation, would trim the real value of their indebt he hadness, thus high private indebtedness i think will contribute to political sure on the federal reserve to inflate. now the path forward. if i can return in a sense to my opening comments, i do see just three ways forward in dealing with this, with this current and prospective fiscal imbalance. while each involves pain, only the third in my opinion will resolve the imbalances without eventually also causing inflation to accelerate and precipitating a financial economic crisis the first option, for dealing with this imbalance is for the central bank to succumb to the political pressure and monetize the debt. as deficits and debt levels within the country rise, relative to national income, interest rates will tend to

rise as well. in this instance, the central bank is often pressured to keep rates low, and encourage, or required to assist the markets in facilitating the debt the government's funding needs. if the central banks succumbs, its balance sheet will expand, bank reserves will grow, and inevitably the money supply will crease. this process often appears nine at first. it is welcome but if it goes on unchecked, the outcome is almost always higher levels of inflation and immediately, ultimately, a loss of confidence in the value of the currency, and the economy. walter baget's fame must dictum about banks holds equally for governments. once their soundness is questioned, it is too late. that moment governments and their citizens are forced to make sizeable, painful, fiscal adjustments.

the example of both the political pressure that can be exerted on the central bank as well as inflationary of debt monetizaton is currently played out not just in greece but argentina. the president of argentina, central bank was recently forced to resign because he would not transfer reserves held by the central bank to repay certain government debt. inflation in argentina is currently running near 8% and i'm willing to bet it is going to go higher. now the second path is what i call stalemate between the fiscal and monetary authorities. in such a stalemate the fiscal imbalance grows while an independent central bank maintains its focus on long-run price stability. although the u.s. government is currently privileged to borrow at favorable rates, the fiscal outlook would inevitably i think undermine

this privilege, adding risk premium and the price of its debt in terms of interest rates would increase. also as a government competes with the private borrowers for funds, as the economy improves, the potential exists for the fiscal imbalance to drive up real cost of borrowing and real cost of capital to the private sector. eventually this combination of large debt, high cost of borrowing and capital weakens the economic growth prospects and undermines confidence in the economy's long-run potential. slowly, but inevitably if the fiscal debt goes unaddressed, the currency weakens as does access to global financial markets, and the cycle worse sense, leading ultimately to a financial and economic crisis. to me, an interesting example in this respect is canada, the first half of the 1990's. during this period, canadian

federal debt increased from about 55% of gdp to roughly 70%. at the same time, following the a joint agreement between the government and the bank of canada, the bank targeted a steady downward path of inflation from 3% to 2% at the end of 1995. but no monetary accommodation from the central bank, unsustainable, government deficits and debts caused real rates to rise while canadian inflation was below that of the united states this period, canadians paid a substantial risk premium over u.s. to borrow. moreover, the canadian dollar became under sis tent pressure and overall economic performance suffered with gdp grew sluggishly from the 1990-91 recession and unemployment climbed eventually to 12%. these economic conditions contributed to the election

of a new government, which made a credible commitment to balance the budget, as maya has outlined. in the following years the federal budget deficit fell dramatically and revenues did increase and government expenditures were cut sharply. by 1996 canadian interest rates had fallen below comparable u.s. rates. inflation remain subdued, real gdp growth picked up and unemployment fell. so that brings us to the third, and the canadian experience in the second half of the '90s is suggestive of the benefits of third. it is the only responsible way to resolve our growing fiscal imbalance. by addressing its source in an environment of price stability, all seemed to agree this is the way we would prefer to go at least, of course the devil is always in the details. at the outset it requires an

institutional prime minister work committed to having an independent central bank with price stability. this discourages the fiscal authority from turning its central bank and should it do so it strengthens that bank's ability to say no. the united states the federal reserve policies in the early 80s i think provide a good vivid example of the benefits that arise from the exercise of this independent authority. during this time, high interest rates policies designed to lower the inflation were deeply unpopular both among the elected officials and the broad public but the federal reserve was able to exercise its independence and pursue a long-term goal which systematically reduced inflation and changed the psychology of the nation regarding its expectations about the inflation path. as a result, the united states has had nearly three decades of relatively low inflation.

growing inflation is not an acceptable alternative to strong fiscal management. a government faced withing debt levels must provide credible, long-term, plans, to establish fiscal balance. the plan must be clear, have the force of law, and its progress measurable so as to reassure markets but also the public that the country has the will and the ability to repay its debt in a stable currency. to be broadly accepted, the plan must be seen as fair in which there is a sense of shared sacrifice across all segments of the economy. without being specific, these requirements suggest an approach which we're willing to disappoint a host of special interests. it means, for example, controlling budget earmarks, not because they're going to make a huge difference but because we need to establish trust. we need to trim subsidies to

numerous economic sectors. and we must resolve the banking problems and the perception of wall street is favored over main. all of which would otherwise foster mistrust, and cynicism among the public. and i think that's a big part of the backlash that is going on now. leaving these issues unaddressed will undermine the essential popular support required for the tough decisions needed to bring our federal budget into balance. finally, there are no shortcuts. we currently must adjust from a misallocation of resources. that's why this recession is so tough. there's no way to avoid some short-term pain in fixing the fundamentals of our economy. it is inconvenient for the election cycle, certainly and undeniably terrible to have 10% of labor force out of work. but shortcuts now mean people out of work again in only a few years because we

again, try to avoid the difficult adjustments that are inevitable. outlining a credible course for manage our debt now and into the future will, i think, accelerate the restoration of confidence in our economy, and contribute importantly to sustainable capital investment and job growth. as i mentioned, in the beginning, the fiscal proprojections for the united states are so stunning that one way or another rewill occur. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course. the u.s. government must make adjustments in its spending and its tax programs. it is that simple. if preemptive correction action is not taken regarding the fiscal outlook, then the united states risks precipitating its own next crisis. eventually government budgets that are severely

out of balance are inevitably reformed either by force of the markets or preferably by choice. unfortunately nations often must experience a profound crisis to focus the government's attention on taking the corrective action. usually it is at this point that the government's established fiscal discipline, renew commitment to independent senbanc and again to do the cuts that are necessary. ironically, these generally are precisely the reforms that would have prevented the crisis in the first place. the only difference between countries that experience fiscal crisis and those that don't, is foresight to take the corrective action before circumstances and markets harshly impose it on them. in time, significant and permanent fiscal reforms must occur in the united states. i want to make a couple comments. in terms of this thought of the word, populism and,

words like, it is really about the center, the middle class, who are looking for reforms, and, if you give them the confidence that it will be shared broadly, i, from my experience in the midwest, they will follow that lead, but they have to have the assurances. and i much prefer that. i much prefer a credible plan. i much prefer the time it takes to explain that to the center, than i look forward to the year, the otherwise irresistable impulse of the government to come knocking at central bank's door. thank you very much. [applause] >> you want questions? >> just say, you're able to join us for a couple questions. >> i would love to join you, irsure. >> sure. i'm not going to ask a question. i'm going to comment that i think it is remarkably helpful and important to hear from the president of the federal reserve bank

what components would make a plan credible? because i think there is, starting to be an understanding the important benefits of a commitment to a credible budget plan now and how it can buy you a little time. but i worry the political process from what makes something credible. don't worry, we promise we'll put a budget deal in place. so it is helpful to have the benchmarks laid out. let's go ahead and open it up for some questions. >> sure. >> marvin. >> you make a very persuasive case for the maintenance of the independence of the central bank in dealing with this problem. i was wondering what actions in terms of disclosures and transparencies and accountability of the fed you think would be useful in maintaining that independence? >> very good question.

first of all, i think that you have to, and, let me say of all, the central bank, the federal reserve has engaged in a number of efforts to become more transparent. our minutes are released within two weeks. a transcript is available within five years, is a big change. but i also think, and here's where, i think is particularly important. it is difficult, and i'm a member of the committee, to, because you always want to present a unifying view. but the fact of the matter is the committee is a committee with different points of view. and i think it is very important that the members, express their different views so that the people know that there is a discussion going on. that there is a debate that considers the various views and then comes to a decision over time, and why those differences are there and

why, the decision is finally made. i think that would do, and is, is something we ought to continue to courage for the central bank of the united states because, we have this broad nation, and there are, there are differences in terms of what is going on in terms of the midwest or the west or the northeast, and bringing those views forward and expressing that, and seeing the difference, i think gives people confidence that there is a real debate going on there. the other is, we are accountable to congress. we do need to explain ourselves to congress, as we do frequently, and we need it do that well, and become part of what gives us, gives a broader, government, if you will, credibility with the people. and i think, that is partly education, getting some of the stereotypical views, kind of addressed and behind us as well.

>> [inaudible]. -- comment about the fiscal policy being out of kilter. and i asked the question, what, is your perspective on state and local pensions and the looming problems that they represent in terms of state and local budgets? >> i think it's going to be one of the most difficult issues we have because it will bring up the whole issue of moral hazard to a new level. because, if the government, if the state government can not afford to make, or the local government can not afford to make good on those pensions, there's going to have to be change. there are going to have be reduced or taxes are going to have to be increased but i think there is a real perception that the government, the federal government will step in and address that the creating a new moral hazard because that will merely move the deficit up to a higher level. so i think, it will be a

difficult debate but i think what we have to do is say, you have to deal with this at the local level. you have to solve this, or we will only accentuate our own fiscal deficit going forward and create a much more difficult problem for ourselves down the road. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you so much for your comments in being here on an excellent program. dallas salisbry with the employee research institute. last august, the treasury department made a minor announcement, meaning it got very little coverage, that they had reached an agreement with china and pan to dramatically increase the amount of u.s. debt that would be issued as tips as opposed to nominal securitis. they announced the dollar volume of those increases in december and in january, debegan the first sales. if china and japan become in essences, more than willing

to continue giving money to the united states as long as they can get it in the form of inflation protected securities, and the pressure from foreign lenders to not inflate essentially mitigates, what do you think the longer term consequences of that policy shift are? >> well, i think it's, it will, it's kind of the stalemate with the longer term horizon but we will, it will come back. the confidence will be lost. we will have the crisis. and it will be worse because we've allowed, the stalemate to go on longer. i mean, i think that is a, that is a, very, i understand the desires of having the tips and so forth to protect but it is not an answer to the problem. it is a band aid on the greater problem and i fear the outcome will be just

deafing long term. -- devastating long term. >> thank you, sir. phil levy from the american enterprise institute. you make an eloquent case for the importance of senbanc independence. i was wondering if you could address some of the challenges come to that from an expanded federal, we particularly saw in the crisis where for a variety of reasons, very well-founded the fed taking a bigger role in the supporting housing market, salvaging financial institutions but that also seemed to draw a fair bit of call fire, make it more of a political institution. could you sus that trade-off the expanded role of price stability that you discussed. >> that is a very fair question. i think it has, it has no question, brought us into a political frarm -- frame beyond, what we were in the 80s as we were pushing for price stability. it has complicated. when you think about a

trillion 1/4 of mortgage-backed securities on our balance sheet, it certainly has changed the dynamics for us going forward. our primary goal right now, has been expressed by others is this exit strategy. and to do it in a way that is, thoughtful, doesn't cause harm, because we're here now, and you have to figure out how you get from here to where you need to be and where you need to be is back as a central bank, primarily, focused on short-term fed funds rate, price stability going forward, that then insures longer term growth and we need to remove that, those assets from our balance sheet. as, quickly, but as carefully and systematically we can, so we take away the temptation, which is, can tell you, is immediately there. if you can do this for the housing market, why can't you do this for the ag

market? why can't you do this for the auto market? why can't you, and the consequences are dire. so we need to get out of this as quickly as we can, acknowledging that we're there now, but we can not stay there or i think we will invite just tremendous adverse impacts on this nation's economy. >> back of the room there. >> yes, i'm --, foundation. the longer that the maturity, debt, of the public debt is, the less you need the assistance of inflation to get you out of the problem. can you comment a little bit on what has been happening by actually shortening, shortening that maturity over the last year what impact that could have its effe, i haven't down the

sensitivity analysis in terms of what the future cash flows would be but my, my sense is, again, it's a little bit like our other issue with tips. it changes the dynamics of the debt, but that's going to be temporary at best. the total debt will be there. and, so long as you have that, that's an overhang that the public is aware of and the world is aware of. and it is not just that it's there but that it is growing at a rate faster than your nominal income of the consequences are obvious. regardless of the term structure of it, that may affect timing but i don't think it affects eventual outcomes, at least in my opinion. when you're talking, when you're talking net present value differences in your social security and medicare programs and revenues of 50 trillion, i'm not sure that structure of the debt makes a whole lot of difference to

the out come in the long run. >> tom, thank you for excellent speech summarizing for the challenges of a central banker in this era of fiscal irresponsibility. as we this morning we have intrackable party. democratic party wants to go to european social spending. republicans want to retain traditional american tax levels. in that is structural budget deficit 6% of gdp. fed's program of quantitative easing began 18 months ago and took ball sheet over 228 dollars is expected to end next four weeks. short term programs are running off. there be no purchase of long-term securities after march. go out 12 to 18 months. we have very benign environment. fed funds rate is zero. long bond rate is 3.6, 3.7. but 12 to 18 months from now fed funds rate could be 1%, two%, who knows, even 3%. if we have treasury bonds going to 6 or 7%, do you

expect you get pressure from the white house, treasury or even the congress to restore the tate tiff easing program we had until a few months ago? do you at this at that time there will be people on federal reserve that will be in favor of referring to the that. how do you see the fed pressures going out 12 to 18 months? >> dave, that's option one. in my speech i didn't care for that option at all. let's keep it that way, i will tell you i think clearly if you, if you get out in that environment, and, your goal is price stability you're staying with that goal, pressure will mount. that's when the independence will be more important than ever to say, yes, we understand, but you, there's things you can do. that's why the canadian example is so good. if you give us a credible, give us the american, people a credible program, how we're going to deal with this, and, the hard fact is,

there are no free lunches. you can't give everything, everyone. and so we're going to have to make choices. i have been asked time and time again, well, we need to have a infrastructure. we need to have, we need to make sure we take care of that i agree with that. but the, but the point is, you have to begin to make choices in terms of how much and to what proportion are we going to allocate our resources,. . .

>> it's hard for citizens to say yes, i understand that we needed to put this liquidity out there. i understand we need to do these particular bailout. but it does look inherently unfair. and when you have that, you have to change that perspective because it is accurate to some extent. so now let's go through, and if we get a credible plan let's make sure we explain it to the extent it is fair. and i do as i said in my

remarks, it is inconvenient for election cycles that it really is. that's the hard part ahead. that's what has to be done or it will be done for us. >> i know we have to let you go. do you have time for one more question? >> sure. i'm having a good time here. [laughter] >> good. right here. >> right behind you. >> i will put my service to president obama as his top senior adviser recently, and i don't expect to hear from him so i will start publishing a weekly on what the problems are in the best solution. but some thoughts are you mention canada, and their healthcare system, eight pages. mexico hester a national healthcare system. we have spent twice as much of our entire economy as a second highest in the country, we used to be rated number one. anyway, to made it short, what

has been the experience of canada, the other part of my russian, military spending. several top nonveterans, late 1990s, our future 21st will be military focus. we had a couple forced to back that up. i have some solutions on that, but canada and so on, how did they -- i have a third. are there a couple of countries that really have their massive debt in the best way that we can try to copy? thank you. >> well, i'm not sure i got the first part of your question in terms of canada, but, you know, this amount of money we spent on healthcare is a choice we've made as a nation, either inadvertently or deliberately. but we have made that choice and we have helped to it.

and going forward will have to sort out whether we want to continue with that choice. if we bring about, how will we bring it back in a fairway? as far as of the military goes, we have a major commitment there. and so long as we are the lead in the world, then i will be part of our commitment. how much we choose to do, well, that's a choice we make. then what else has to get behind that is the rest of it. in terms of either revenue, other revenue cuts or other tax increases that i said is a purview of the congress. but my concern is that you don't make those choices and you think the central bank, by printing money, salt your problem. and of course, all it does is make it worse. >> i think we're going to have to and it. >> yes been raising his hand every time. i feel obligated. >> if you have time we will do it. >> to questions. >> you get one. >> based on your premise that

there are no free lunches, should there be monetary policy, should differentiate between productive uses of credit and nonproductive use of credit? we've seen a lot of examples of speculative and credit that increases the concentration of ownership of economic power. but should there be an emphasis or a new emphasis on to productive use of credit? i want to go back to the history of the fed. in 1913, the original power of us had, original way of monetizing growth was in the private sector. under section 13 of the federal reserve act, as you know. any act. and then we shifted, and created the open market committee as we just about when we're ready to go into war, because the public leadership did not want to tax

people for the cost of the war. so we shifted to nonproductive uses. >> i'm going to ask if you can focus on your question. >> because i have to leave. >> so the question is then, should we go back to the ideas of monetizing private sector growth that brings about also broad-based capital ownership of the process? >> well, to boil down, the answer in my opinion is no. is too blunt an instrument. part of the statement of activity that we saw in the recent past was too easy to get credit for too long. and so you need to administer monetary policy, it's a judgment call every time, but you need to focus on the broad because it is a broad instrument. once you get into deciding what's productive and what is nonproductive, then you really have politicized the federal reserve and i don't want to get

into that. now in terms of the areas you think should be favored, that is a fiscal choice. because those are subsidies and tax policies, but not in terms of saying, you're a good credit so you get 2%, you're a bad credit and you get 9 percent from the central bank. that would be a disaster. last question and i've got to go. >> i will try to make this one real quick. i understand the history of the federal reserve, great service to get it started. it's struggled until we went off the gold standard domestically in 1933 but then we find one of the gold standard international in 1971. there were no sweeping changes in the outlook of the gao, cbo and federal reserve. so if there's one of imagination here, after going off the gold standard, why do you even bother selling treasury bonds? why not just leave them as an excess reserve in the federal

reserve? >> i think it is tempting enough to have the central bank monetized debt. by having to sell and to focus on price stability in terms of the purchase of them, i think you have a greater chance to minimize the politicization of the central bank. and that is a very important reason. not to put a plus, i think you still, in putting those bonds out there, used to pulling in savings from the u.s. citizen and citizens of the rest of the world, not just on the central bank. thank you very much, maya. [applause] >> all right. it has been a long day. on behalf of the committee for responsible federal budget and the peterson-pew commission, we hope you have got a lot out of some really fabulous panels. and our keynote speaker, thank you for coming. we will see you at our next

event. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span.org, as you know throughout the program, we were asking for your reaction at twitter.com. your tweed reactions. got a lot of them. so if you want to check that out, go to our website. connect with c-span. all the twitter feeds are there. reaction to the norm ornstein writes one, i wonder if he said that when bush was at 53% approval. also comment on twitter.com absolutely free market dumps all

the risk on the public at large to benefit the very few. you can check that out on her website, c-span.org. president obama making news today speaking about jobs, announced the $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for a new nuclear plant, the first nuclear facility to be built in the u.s. in 30 years. it will be built in burke, georgia. president obama making that announcement today. also today part of this week they are focusing on the one year anniversary of the stimulus spending. and president obama sending the vice president and other members to talk about jobs created. vice president biden is in saginaw michigan today at a jobs training facility there. it was about a year ago that the stimulus bill was passed by congress and signed into law. $787 billion in economic stems money. of that, $333 billion has been

allocated, about 179 billion paid out so far as the debris second. if you go to our website, c-span.org, you can take a look at where that money is being spent, how it is being spent. lots of video there and going the president and others talking about jobs creation. c-span.org slashed stimulus. we will take you live to the white house now. robert gates is holding a briefing. live coverage on c-span. [inaudible conversations] >> yes, ma'am.

>> hello. welcome back. >> welcome back to you. >> thank you. [laughter] >> why was the door locked? >> what do you mean? only do you. everyone else has the secret handshake. >> the capture of mullah abdul, what does that mean? >> i'm not going to get into this topic and not going to discuss in any details around the. >> kill rates of tears and al qaeda, taliban, why wouldn't you talk about those? >> i don't think we would talk about from this position, and we're not going to do it today. >> the president said we killed more extremist. >> we are no doubt prosecuting more against al qaeda and its extremist allies in a way that hasn't been seen before. i'm not going to get into details about this individual or

others. >> how about generalities to? i just talked in general terms about that. >> can you play would be important not to talk about? >> look, obviously -- this involves very sensitive intelligence matters. this involves the collection of intelligence. and it is best to do that and not necessarily talk. >> on iran, they have been saying the door still open to negotiations, and yet the rhetoric is getting very heated. secretary of state saying that iran is moving towards military dictatorship and today saying that any country that imposes sanctions -- that ahmadinejad

was a country that opposed sanctions will regret them. >> look, mr. ahmadinejad has been making inflammatory statements for i think going on many years. i wouldn't simply cordon off today's outrageous statement. low, i think what secretary clinton, secretary clint said about the, they are a powerful force in the country. that has taken actions to support iran's nuclear program. taken actions repress the universal rights of its citizens and to facilitate its state sponsorship of tears which led the treasury department just last week to tighten sanctions upon the i/o gcc. our policy of engagement is not for the sake of simply engaging.

if iran is unwilling to constructively take part in that and change its behavior, then as the president said in the state of the union, and as the russians and the french and the americans said in the letter to today, they are not changing their behavior, we will have consequences. >> would you say that cooperation between u.s. intelligence and pakistani intelligence has never been better? >> i think we have, over the course of many months, seen an increase in that cooperation. and i think we have seen dating back white friendly to last spring, we've seen an increase in pakistani -- figure out how

to phrase, pakistani pushback on extremists in their own country. which i think is beneficial not simply for us, but i think the pakistanis realize that extremists, extremist threats within its own border, or just threats outside of this country but were threats to their own country. and i think they have a properly taken strong action to. >> do you think this is because of a realization after the incident last year in swat valley that pakistani government was in fact being threatened? or do you think also it is a reflection in a way of the new foreign policy of the obama administration? >> book, i think we've had through engagement and increased amount -- we've seen an increased amount of cooperation within. we are working constructively with them, meeting with them regularly. we have a better intelligence sharing capability. i don't think it is an either

or. i think in this case as i said in my first answer, i think the realization of what was happening within their own country and the threat that opposed also played a big part in changing their actions. >> also, over the weekend, senator lindsey graham suggested that john brennan should step down because of comments he made at and what you. i was wondering if you had any reaction to that. that's only the second senator call for britain to step down. >> i will read rate what i said last week that nobody could hope for in this administration or in a previous administration which he served to stand up the national counterterrorism center. somebody more dedicated and less partisan than john brennan and doing everything they possibly can at every hour of the day to keep this country safe. i think we all men and women like him that work to keep our country a thank you, rather than to have them used as political

footballs. >> does the president agreed with what mr. brennan wrote in u.s.a. today last week, that criticism of the obama administration counterterrorism policies serve the goals of al qaeda's? >> i think what john said was terrorists seek to strike fear and use fear to divide. i think what john pointed out was that these are not giant man. these are not, these are not great people. and i think, again, i think john's service dating back more than two decades is something to be commended. >> does the president agree with the language mr. brennan just? >> i think the president believes that our national security should not be a partisan political gain that seeks to divide us, instead something that hopefully will

unite us in efforts whether it is in afghanistan in efforts military efforts in civilian efforts that you see right now, or in activities that are taking place around the world to make this country's favorite. >> if it doesn't then it serves the goals of al qaeda's? >> it seeks to divide it that it makes us working together to fight a common enemy much more difficult. >> robert, followed by jake. >> i might've seen a clip or two. >> he had a lot of criticism. when you get a high level captures like this of the taliban leader, is there any sense of vindication in this white house that you are prosecuting probably? >> we didn't need -- were not looking for vindication. the president has taken strong steps to make sure that we're doing everything we can to keep our country safe.

whether that is taking steps to eliminate that threat, whether that is taking steps to capture those that pose harm to our soldiers and our security, candidly, watching the vice president this weekend, i felt as if, and i've said this before but i think it was more, even more apparent this past weekend. the vice president seems to have been engaged in a number of policy battles in the previous administration. it appears as if he had great battles with the department of justice and the attorney general, that he had battles with the state department, that these appearances in all honesty, given what he said this weekend, seem more focused in litigating those battles from seven, six, five, four years ago

as much as anything else. >> something he said though that is parked about in your own party, commentators are very of set that the former vice president said that he is a big supporter of waterboarding. he still thinks that waterboarding should be on the table with the christmas bomber, for example. and there are commentators saying what is the current president going to do about this when of a former vice president saying it was a supporter of waterboarding in the last administrator dead water board when this current president has said that waterboarding is torture and is illegal. >> what are we going to? >> yesterday with a former vice president admitting that we have waterboarding and still think there should be waterboarding. and this president has said that's against the law. >> we outlawed. but our reaction to his criticism, again, i don't think it's anything new. >> did you see what happened before, you're not going to -- >> we've gone through, we've gone through that.

the president focused on moving forward. i think the actions of round activities of the bomber on christmas day demonstrate that leaving to professionals to make these decisions is far preferable than getting into the political back and forth. you know, the one thing you notice, just to take it as a little bit as a side, the one thing i'm struck by where watch these interviews and watch the shows are the number of things that are now being reputed when this administration does them, and the lack of being able to go back and search transcripts and interviews, and find any of that criticism with the very same

thing happened over the eight years of the bush administration. hold on. richard reid was mirandized five minutes after the plane landed in boston and four times in two days. and the vice president of the united states, not only didn't say anything in opposition to that, but defended the way that richard reid was being handled. so did everybody else, and now an almost completely an out of situation, everybody is a critic. when it comes how one is interrogated, when it comes to their status, you saw the vice president this week and. you heard this red herring, right? we didn't have military commissions. there've been three military commissions in terms of, military commissions are not

about, as the vice president had to agree with this weekend, the vice president said sure, they could have detained him in military custody. they clearly made a definitive decision not to do that. the attorney general law to the fact that they're moving him into the civilian court system. again, the criticism was nowhere to be found. so i think build off what several of these questions is, are you going to take the steps that are necessary in a bipartisan way to keep our country safe, or are you more interested in playing a political game? the president, john brennan and others on this team are far more interested in keeping this country safe and in the volley of talking points and press releases. >> the last thing on nuclear power. the president's big announcement today.

he didn't limit his going to do with the nuclear waste that he said he was going to have a bipartisan panel decide. the country has been trying to figure out that for years and hasn't been able to figure it out. this of ministers has said we will take the mountain off the table. and so will the bipartisan panel be able to put everything on the table, are you saying yucca mountain is off the table? >> look, i think what has, what has taken yucca mountain off the table in terms of a long-term solution for a repository for nuclear waste is the science. besides out to make these decisions. the president has a panel headed by lee hamilton to very able individuals to help decide a problem that, as you mentioned, i think it was the nuclear policy act of 1986 is what began

the process of collecting money to build a long-term nuclear waste repository. said this is something the country has struggled with for obviously several decades. we've also struggle with the fact that as the demand for electricity generation power have greatly increase, we have not in 30 years build any additional nuclear facilities. the president believes about the campaign and said as much that we need a balanced approach. he made good on that balanced approach today. we increase the loan guarantees in the federal, and the current federal budget deficit, to build more of these facilities, to strike that balance. and also to create, begin to create a market for cleaner energy sources. through comprehensive energy legislation. >> if you can't find a place to put the waste, countries are going to be stuck and you will

not be able to build these new reactors the mac right now, guinness policy start in 1986. we are in 2010, and we don't have a permanent facility. right now waste is stored at individual facilities. the president understands that in order for this to be the type of source that it needs to be in the future, we do have to seek a permanent storage facility for that waste. and that is what he believes this commission will be charged to do. >> following up on the water board and torture. use of the present outlawed waterboarding. what is the responsibly of his administration to make sure that this latest alleged captive from the afghan taliban is not waterboarding or tortured? is at the president and administration's responsibility? is it the responsibility of make sure waterboarding doesn't

happen that pakistan's security forces? >> chip, i've heard a number of reasons and i just said i'm not going to get into the details surrounding any of these events right now. >> is a question of policy, not a question of this particular case spent and i would be happy to talk about it off camera. >> switching topics then to the stimulus. tomorrow is the anniversary, i believe, and what is the number of jobs now that the administration believes were created or saved? what is the phrase and how are you counting them helped? >> let me get you the report that i think says 1.5, to 2 million. and i can also send you the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan i think there never, i don't have it handy, i think something like 1.6, to 2.4. as you know there's a website for recipient statistics for a

portion of, for a portion of -- >> that's really my point. >> one point six to 2.4 i think are very much in the same ballpark. >> yes, sir. doesn't sound much like county jobs, if they differ by half a million. >> again, chip, you should call doug elmendorf over the congressional budget office, who i think it is i'm just trying to get from you. >> what did he say? >> everybody wants all these different numbers. they are all over. >> i'm not an economist that i don't know the theory that the congressional budget office, which has scored pieces of legislation, that reconsider, that gives those budgetary and policy impact scores. i would point you to a report that says that's how many jobs were created. but look, look at the recipient reports.

again, the recipient reports that i think cover a portion, cover a portion of the recovered act, but we have seen hundreds of thousands of teachers that, as a result of pretty drastic cutbacks at state and local government funding would have required teachers to be laid off. class sizes would have rose, would have risen. schools would have likely been closed as a result of those harmful budget cuts. that's why the recovery act has a significant amount of state and local assistance to assure that police and firefighters and teachers and the like are not laid off. >> the reason i'm asking this is because in "new york times" recent poll one number just leaves out, and it's when you ask people, has the recovery act created jobs, 6% say yes. so either they are just

massively confused what all these numbers, or just a bad job of selling this in convincing people. 6% is so close to zero it's almost -- >> or it could be plus or minus 6% building off your previous example. that's on a magnitude of six, chip, if you were to -- -- >> to think the industry has done that bad of a job? >> i think were living in an environment where the unemployment rate is 9.7%. i think were living in an environment where 8.4 million people since the summer of 2007 have lost their job. chip, let me give you the edge of the president would give me the asked about his approval ratings in an economy with a 9.7% unemployment. i'm sure it's very true when you call somebody who lives in elkhart, indiana, whose unemployment rate has come down in the last year but is still probably 13 or 14%, or close to

15%. an entire industry, motorhomes motor homes, has been decimated. you live in elkhart. you just lost her job. your wife it just lost her job. you're having trouble figure out how you're going to pay for your kids college, and some races how is the recovery act working? i mean, you know him. >> has agreed any job so? >> again, every economist says the answer to that is just that the problem is, chip, as we talked about, 8.4 million people since december 2007 have lost their jobs. the frustration of economic anxiety didn't start in the summer of 2007. it started -- it's been going back 10 years where people have seen their wages decline. people have worked longer and harder. dancing their productivity rise. get the money in their pocket does arise at the end of every

week when they cash their paychecks. home values have plummeted and continue to have a hard time sustaining their value. we have gone through an economic trauma, unlike anything that we've seen in this country since the late 1920s. that's, i think that is a significant number. >> on the taliban leader, -- >> the one i'm not going to talk about? >> this is so public, that we captured. why did it become public information? is this something that is endangering the mission? >> well, i will say this. well, i'm not going to do this. i said i wasn't and i'm not going to get dragged into it. look, anytime classified information becomes public, it's never helpful.

>> i want to read you a quote, if i could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow business that would be one more that congress has created than the last six months. do you agree with that statement? >> i, i think that, i think we have seen continued job loss. i think the president has outlined steps. i think senator bayh has outlined steps that now we need to see congress act on them. they are going to take the first of those steps and when they get back from the recess. [inaudible] >> chuck, i think people are frustrated with job growth. again, i have used this statistic before. if you take how many jobs were lost in the most severe recession i think in most people's memory, the early 1980s, add that to the job loss of a recession in the early 1990s, and then add that to

the job loss in 2001 and 2002, at those all together and you don't have the job loss that we have seen since december of 2007. of course. >> does the white house accept any responsibility for the environment that kevin by was complaining about in his retirement speech in that he feels like the system is broken the senate is broken. does the white house accept any blame for the? >> look, i think what senator bayh identified in 2010, senator barack obama to run for president in 2008. >> why do you think he didn't want to stick around and help. >> you and i've had this conversation here before. i think people use a number of different criteria to make a decision for why they're going

to run. ivc somebody ahead by 20 points in the polls, and gaining interest on 13 million-dollar political bank account is not worried about their electoral prospects. but i think his frustrations with the way washington works, the president's frustration with the way washington works. the americans people with the way washington works. look, i think everybody involved is probably partly responsible. the question is what are you going to do to fix it? the president is trying to do all that he can to make this place work. >> the white house lost control over the narrative, what do you mean, thinking that by that? your transition chief? >> i don't expect he said they lost control of the narrative and those are probably getting everything everything they're trying to do. >> we've been dealing with something unforeseen by other

administrations in 80 years. >> you guys have been anything wrong? [laughter] >> was that a follow-up to that question? was this something that was hanging out from like six weeks ago? >> this assembly saying you guys could be doing. >> i don't know. >> i don't know what his criticism is based on. i don't -- you know, i haven't read whatever you're referring to, that mr. podesta might have said. again, i think we have been dealing with an extraordinary mountain over the course of the past, a little more than a year, that we are working desperately to try to fix. >> the president reiterated today during his speech a desire

to have a comprehensive climate change energy bill. did he secure any, before announcing this, the nuclear reaction, did he say to any kind of recessions from the republicans when he met them part of the way with this nuclear power initiative? did they said all right, we're going to come to the table on cap-and-trade cap-and-trade, for instant? >> again, i understand by now there is a process, i guess you could call it try partisan in the senate with joe lieberman, john kerry and lindsey graham. the likes of which the president talks about. their wasn't a negotiation around these nuclear. the president believes that this has to be one aspect of the way we generate power in this country. i think the president talked

about, look, the cheapest way to do it is with a coal fire power. but even operators of coal-fired power plants understand that this isn't, this isn't the way of the future, and the way the future is to set a market for the innovation around clean energy. that is done, one of the ways that is done is through a cap-and-trade comprehensive energy. >> one of the ideas coming out of the republicans on that is to have a cap-and-trade system only apply to the utility industries. and so it would take care of that coal plant, but it would, it would basically only cover about 40 percent of the economy. is that something that the white house would consider? >> let me check with carol and others. i have not seen a proposal. odyssey, we took steps in the recovery plan and have taken steps as result of increased

fuel mileage requirements, different ideas about that to deal with the largest sector of greenhouse gas emissions, which is transportation. >> one last question on this. there is an effort in the senate and i think the house as well to legislatively prevent the epa from going ahead with its regulations on greenhouse gas is. would the president veto legislation like that? >> let me, i don't know how that legislation would work. we wouldn't support that because, jonathan, what the epa is doing, they were instructed to do as result of a lawsuit by states to regulate those dangerous gases. >> one other thing that you said

last week that the president would be coming up with his dead commission. do you have a clear time frame on that? >> later in the week that it will be this week, yes. >> what will is the white house taking in planning a democrat to run in indiana? >> i'm sure they are having conversations with people that are interested. i don't, i have not talked to folks here about whether they have made phone calls. look, first and foremost i think those that are, you know, those that are in indiana have to decide whether they are interested in running or not. >> what role did the chief of staff taken try, not successfully obviously? >> and all the conversations that senator bayh has had with people in washington or indiana that he is doctor the president on a number of occasions. he has talked with the chief of staff on a number of occasions about a decision that he had to

make, given, and involving the direction of his life. and i'm sure taking into account a lot of different accounts. >> won trivial pursuit. -- >> which subject am i on? >> you are on twitter. are you sending out all these tweets and your self? >> inexplicably, yes. [laughter] >> know, you know, bill probably has, probably has some matter of twitter up now. i sat in that chair with the present was in here. admittedly hadn't spent a lot of time using that tool. i was fascinated to watch it. it seemed, as i said to some of you, and avenue that our boys would be important. it's been fascinating to watch just over the few days since i

have joined it. i have enjoyed watching you all comment on women's figure skating and skied jumping, and all manner of -- yeah, i can only -- i think it's interesting. look, there's a tremendous amount of information that we all get and have to read and go through each day. this is certainly one way to get, you know, on a rolling basis to see a lot of that information in front of you. it's an interesting thing to watch. >> how do think 140 character or 140 word limit on the discourse in this room would work? >> i can't speak for you, but i would say this. i do not know yet if i have tried to type one of those out, where the number right next to the box didn't say make it is something, and then i'm trying to figure out how to shorten.

there's a whole language obviously that, typing with numbers and symbols, that has evaded me. i'm sure my son can teach me that far more, far better than i can pick it up. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i have been. it's an interesting thing. >> are you guys confirming his capture? >> i'm not talking about it from the pointed spirit by which is one of because, on the greek depth crisis, how is the president monitoring that? >> as part of the president economic program, secretary geithner and director summers and doctor rohmer, all talk to the president about the situation in europe. and gave him an update on what was going on, on the challenges

that the greeks and the larger e.u. face. we have confidence, as they told the president, that the e.u. is capable of dealing with this situation. >> so he is pleased with the european response right now, the germans and the french? >> he has monitored what, through both news reports and what larry, tim, and doctor rohmer have told him. and i think all are in agreement that the e.u. is capable of solving this. >> presents given occasion director says he has refined the delivery of the message. how can a president who has conducted more primetime news conferences in his first year than any president in history feel that -- >> i think we did six. >> i stand corrected. >> i could've twitter that. >> we did univision.

>> and -- [laughter] >> how can he feel -- how can he feel the american public doesn't know precisely what he wants? >> look, window, there's a lot of different stuff to place each and every day. the media is segmented in a way that it has never been before. i think we've been asked why, why does the president have to do so many interviews? well, people get their information from now so many different sources. the one we just talked about, didn't exist only a few years ago. look, so what the president will do and what we will do is a staff is continue to find ways to make, to make the delivery of what he is working on each and every day, and how it affects people's lives more readily available to them.

>> does the strategy also involve reminding people the present is the age of change, and yet it would seem that what is in the way is old washington ways, partisanship? why can't you, why can't you affect some change in that? >> we are trying, but understand, that with the presidency doesn't come the magic wand for changing the way this town works. you heard the president outlined ways that he thinks, he thinks this town can work better. in the state of the union, that we have to take steps to ensure that foreign corporations can't unduly influence our elections off of what the supreme court decided, that contacts with lobbyists are reported more readily so that people understand.

if you are working on behalf of the people's interest or the special interests, that's what led us to put on lock each month visitors that come into this building for the first time in the history of this country. >> on a different subject, the climate action partnership now is without the support. bp, caterpillar all announced today they are dropping out. your reaction? >> i would be happy too to come have-nots in that but but i would be happy to take a look at it. mike? >> on the nuclear energy these going back a little bit to what jonathan talked about, as i remember, the president has talked about nuclear energy and additional oil drilling as part of the package, you know, sort of a comprehensive package that would include climate change legislation. by peeling off this piece of it, is he essentially giving away one of his sort of trading chance he could use with the

republicans by saying we will just go ahead and do the nuclear peace outside of a kind of an agreement? >> no, i don't -- look, two things. as a part of energy legislation, that went to congress, it opened up the possibility for loan guarantees to stabilize and incentivize an industry that i've you see as a result of new construction in 30 years had dwindled. the president has demonstrated in his budget the desire to see more loan guarantees in the future. i think this demonstrates that, look, the president and the state of union and the the president said in a meeting with republican leaders in congress, mitch mcconnell i think said you know what, we support nuclear energy. we support offshore drug. the president said in that meeting, mitch, you will be

happy with what we do. now, i don't think there's anybody that would tell you that today's announcement alone or more of saved and what we did today is going to solve all of our energy problems. there isn't one aspect of any number of different sources, wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, any of that, not one of those things is going to solve all those problems. together, setting a market for and incentivize in clean energy, we have the ability to take the steps we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and to help clean up our environment. we are certainly willing, and i think the president has demonstrated, through this announcement through the budget, his willingness to be part of this dialogue.

we are heartened by senator grams working with senator lieberman and senator kerry on the comprehensive piece of legislation that can get through the senate. >> you told jonathan there were not in a negotiation specifically about this, but do you see this as sending a pretty clear message to the republicans more broadly on comprehensive climate change, that this is sort of on track? >> i think the president a week ago here said that he was going to make some decisions on energy, and i think he redirected it today that it might not make everybody and his party completely comfortable. but again, i think it goes back to what i said, which is there isn't an energy silver bullet. only by working together and increasing our investment across eight rod spectrum are we going to be able to do with all of our problems. i think the president's announcement today demonstrates his willingness to take part in

that comprehensive discussion about a comprehensive piece of energy reform. >> one quick twitter question. when you came into office a year ago, a lot of you were growing about, give up your social, social media, facebook and i thought twitter and all that. >> bill was popular facebook. i'm not nearly as young and hip. >> clearly. [laughter] >> you were supposed to really agree. that was sort of a segway thing. [laughter] >> have you guys -- have you guys somehow resolves security concerns and canyon now be putting that stuff? >> this gathered some attention on the internet when i said at our computers that necessary, didn't have access to twitter. we have, we obviously can't go,

there are sites across a broad spectrum of sites that are blocked from government computers, in order for me to get on a site like twitter, the computer guys had to go do whatever the computer guys do, but at the same time -- [laughter] that's why we have computer guys, right? >> is that a technical term? [laughter] >> i admit the reason i don't care to fix my computer is because -- no, no. also, we have dating back, i don't know when it dates back to, but presidential records require that if i go on a site like this and send out a message, that message has to be archived for the future. just like any e-mails that i send her e-mails that i get are

also archived for the future. so we can change the settings on our computers. it requires, it requires not just the i.t. guys, but an explanation of what the presidential records act entails. as i say that, just as anybody when you're sitting in the e-mail, i don't think anybody should fear going on website and reading what we write or are responding to what we write based on the presidential records act. it assembly intended to preserve the paper and electronic records of the administration to. >> thank you. >> looking ahead, the president has talked about healthcare summit and said he wants to use it to establish what the issues are, what the problems are and to establish factual accuracy about how different approaches work. can you just put a little meat on the bone and talk about how

he envisions this summit working? how is he going to do that in the short span of a day when we have been debating this for a year? >> look, i think during the course of the debate we understand some of the issues that are involved. i think we are at, toward the end of the solution finding. we understand the questions that the president laid out in a state of the union union, particularly around costs. which are going to do about in church reforms, how you are going to recover and give access to the millions that can't afford coverage. and layout both a plan as he sees it, and hoping that others that have been invited and others will give information to those that have been invited, to let in a detailed way what their solutions are for cutting costs for providing reforms for

insurance. and for providing access and coverage to those that currently lack health insurance. and i think the backdrop for, though, the backdrop for what we've talked about for almost a year and certainly i think one of the backdrops for this event will be we have now seen what has happened to the individual insurance market. people are getting letters in the mail now. they gathered in california. your health insurance is going to go up almost 40 percent from last year to this year. that's a preview of what's good to happen if we don't do anything. interestingly, the company that previously bought health insurance and one of the reasons they did this was because we didn't have health reform. well, i would say to this in sure, welcome to the game. come down and help us, help you part of the solution for cutting costs and increasing coverage.

>> is he literally going to have people from cbo and omb and the joint committee saying this is what this is going to cost and this is what that is going to cause? >> i think they will be there, speed are you expecting them to do that on the spot there on live television? >> i think the president -- joystick at some point will the president -- and engaging some person about the proposal, asked omb and cbo the impact on the fundamental questions that he has on costs, on reform and on and insurance coverage? absolutely. i think that's part of the process, is for the american people to watch and engaged discussion on these facts. >> one more. what does he say when republicans say, well, we can't afford to cover 30 million people. we simply fundamentally disagree with your goals here. >> well, that will shortly be part of the discussion.

again, and understanding that what the proposal the president laid out is paid for and doesn't add to the deficit. in fact, over the next 10 to 20 years lessons the obligation has for medicare and medicaid, as well as helping families with the cost of those that have insurance and provide access and help for those that don't. and i think everyone will get a chance to watch and see. we know the problems that people have. we know small businesses are being crushed by these cost. we know if you are a small business in this individual market, you are getting this letter that says your insurance is going up 39%. we know what the problem is. now the question is, what is washington going to do working together to address that problem? and i think the president will lay out his ideas, and i would expect that republicans will, and others will layout their

solutions. if they say look, we can't help the guy in the individual market whose interest has gone up 39%. he's on his own. then you have the parameters of that debate. >> but the republicans accepted the invitation, and if they don't, will the president -- they have indicated they have not accepted it. and with the president go ahead just what the democrats and have a televised work session on its? >> let me say this. i think right before the president issued the invitation, the things that each of these individuals was hoping for most was an opportunity to sit down on television and discussed and engage on these issues. now, not accepting an invitation to do what they asked the president to do, if they decide not to, i will let them leave,

leave it there and try to explain why they are not opposed to what they said they wanted most to do. . . the invites are the relative committee chairs and breaking numbers the committees that dealt with the legislation.

it's not as if we've invited to people you've never heard of and all the smart guys are coming with us. at least i don't think the republicans -- i don't think the republicans would say the people we've invited, since they're in a position in the seniority position among each of these committees and take of this legislation is somehow we could put them into dealing with the people that are charged by congress to deal with these issues. i don't know where the home court advantages. >> page would say we'd like to bring so and so and so. >> according to ann, we haven't heard. so it's adjuster for the imitation becomes transferable that someone would rsvp. [inaudible] >> not yet, but that will -- i don't have the exact date yet but it will be in time for you

and for others around the country to evaluate a plan. >> is that a senate bill or is he going to come up with his own bill? >> i'm not going to get out of it. will have a chance to go through that process. i hope that those who are coming because they said the same thing. we need to see what the american people need to see were discussing. we agree. >> willoughby is own bill because they don't have emerged bills. >> stay turned. yes. >> there've been several rounds of talk between the representative of the chinese government without results. if the president optimistic about the opportunity here for this kind of movement? >> the president would simply encourage the two parties to

continue to talk. >> in his meeting with the dalai lama on thursday, what is he hoping? >> i think the best thing to do is to see what they talk about at the conclusion of the meeting, rather than guess what they might go over and what they might not. >> what they appear, the two of them, on camera after? >> i don't believe so. >> robert, a highly technical question. if your tweets are part of the white house records, other sites that you are receiving are following him is that going to be part of the record as well? in other words, does that constitute as receiving a message? >> meeting last? it took me a year or so to get on this. i may not be the guy best -- >> since you are following -- >> i believe they are. i believe they are.

>> are you following all of jake's tweets? >> i don't know if every site i visit on the internet is documented for the principle to records. >> is it technically a message? >> i can check with on that. >> who are the followers? [laughter] >> yeah, i was going to say. michael, how do you currently have? [laughter] i don't want to compare -- keenly -- >> there's 21,000. >> are your followers of the federal record? >> i will ask the lawyers. but i think let's understand this. wendell, if you send me an

e-mail -- >> well come you never respond. [laughter] >> obviously, i get to the important ones. but know this, in eight years i'm sure the archives of this will be entertained by yours. but this is a serious question. i think is important to understand that again if you e-mail before congress long-ago past, a law that interactions with on e-mail has to be archived, they are not released some period of time. >> my question was a refinement of that. if the dividend to e-mail you then sell you on twitter. >> except again one of the reasons that you can't just log on to that computer and get onto a site like that is because interactions with us are

governed by -- we follow the law. governed by the presidential records act. now, i want to say that should not scare anybody from and judging from some of the criticisms that i've read, it does not. and those aren't your e-mails, wendell. those are others. yes, ma'am. >> would be ongoing operations there's compared there's going to be a high number of civilian casualties. do you think this is going to undermine your efforts and u.s. trust in the afghan government that when and if marshall will be cleared of taliban forces? >> i think it's important to understand this is the size and scope of the supper ration has not yet been seen in the history of the war in afghanistan. and in the lead are in a

civilian in the military way the government and the security forces of afghanistan, which are important. working together with our allies in the region, with isaf, taking the steps that are necessary, both militarily and as you said, to come in behind that with economic development and show a better way of life. and to show why that's important on the military and the civilian level. we always regret in any way the loss of civilian life. i think that always makes the job that you have to do that much tougher. and as i said, we regret that. i think this operation though

demonstrates the security forces of afghanistan in the lead working with others as partners to make progress against the taliban. richard eared >> robert, what the proposal or whatever you post online on health care between on the 2050 scaled back from the house and senate versions at all? >> i do want to get ahead of what we post. once we post it, we'll have more time to discuss it. >> then, looking at indiana and delaware and those are two. for the lack of one particular democratic candidate in each state, democratic chances of keeping those states are severely diminished. was there not to miss her in the future looking at another potential state anything the president can do to stop this bleeding? >> book, country in the reports i saw before he came out here was that there had not been a

qualifier for the seat in indiana. as i understand it, the state central committee will select a democratic nominee among those who wish to run. so i think the notion that we don't have many exceedingly credible, well-qualified candidates on our side, i think is very premature to say. i think the same is true of our candidate and delaware. i think the best thing that the president can do is continue to work each and every day, to create an environment for hiring in the air. to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe and secure. i think that's the best way forward for us. >> robert, just two questions. come back to me.

>> robert, their concern for the clean energy representatives of the wind and solar industries love all the tax breaks that you guys are providing them. they say however that one of the most important things you can do and i think i asked you about this in shanghai a couple of months ago. about white house actually putting solar panels on the white house or maybe getting a small wind turbine. in shanghai, you weren't really sure you said a lot of things and discuss them. >> i don't want to get out of the architects around here. i doubt a small wind turbine is in the offering. i will check. i know there has been discussion of solar panels, but i will -- >> just as a quick follow-up about tax breaks, the state of wyoming, which is actually a big producer of wind power is now actually considering taxing

that. in other words, taken away which you guys are providing with your tax breaks. is it a good idea to tax an industry that sardi struggling? >> well, i don't have details about the state of wyoming is proposing. i can simply talk about the efforts that have gone into wind production tax credit, that the president has supported for years. in which we are greatly enhanced an increase in the recovery act, which has led to dramatic increases in wind energy production. and in the capabilities for future generation, at a time in which the industry felt like because of the lack of credit and the larger and broader economy, that investment in wind energy projects in the country would likely -- you would see a

progression and not. as a result of the recovery act, we've seen instead greater and enhanced investment at a time of economic uncertainty, which has allowed the industry to grow exponentially, like never before. the president considers it a good investment of money, as we create our own energy from wind and lessen overall our dependence on foreign oil. >> to be dug about iran and terrorism, please. on terrorism, you make it in paris she should between extremism and terrorism tiered and on iran -- >> i think i said earlier to jennifer's question, i'd have to go back and look at the transcript. i think i said al qaeda is and its extremist allies.

>> is there a difference between extremism and terrorists? the mad cow go back and look at the transcript. i think i was pretty clear about the type of activity were talking about. >> and on iran who said there would be consequences. >> i wouldn't rule out anything. our focus has been on the process of engagement. the iranians have virtually at every turn either ignored or disregarded that engagement. demonstrating to the world that its nuclear program is not of the means and type that they have tried to convince others that it's for. but as a result of that, not living up to their responsibilities, gets consequences will follow and that's what the president and the p5 plus one have been

involved in. and again the letter that's gone to the iaea from the french, the russians and the americans i think outlines a united position and dealing with iran. thanks guys. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> with your wildest imagination, if you're writing fiction you could not have made this story up.

>> next, former secretary of state madeleine albright joins the college president of wellesley, columbia and spellman to discuss ways that women can be prepared to lead in education industry and government. this is just under an hour and 40 minutes. [applause]

>> well, good afternoon everybody. i'm not used to sitting down to deliver welcoming remarks. it feels a little strange to be in an armed chair. but well come to all of you this afternoon for this conversation with secretary albright on higher education's role and responsibility in global affairs. this afternoon's event is held under the auspices of the college's newly established madalyn covel albright, 59 institute for global affairs. the albright institute represents a renewal and extension of wellesley's commitment to global education in the liberal arts context. all of us that wellesley are excited by the new possibilities at the albright institute is open enough. we are honored that secretary albright has returned to her alma mater as the institute's first distinguished visiting

professor. she is joined in this afternoon's conversation i three distinguished academic leaders. by president bottomley, who needs no introduction. by president lee bollinger of columbia university. and by president beverly daniel tatum of spellman college. throughout their presidencies, which begins coincidentally in the same year, 2002, president bollinger and president a dump of both global education on their respective campuses. each of them has presided over important initiatives, similar in some respects perhaps to the albright institute. both lay. initiatives to expand the intellectual range and global reach of the university or college. we are enormously great old to president bollinger and president paid him for the time to come here today to share their thoughts with us about

their own leadership in these areas and about the way in which higher education in america is or is not meeting its responsibilities in global affairs. last week's catastrophe in haiti has refocused all of us i think on this fundamental issue of our responsibilities to the world at large. our goal is for this event to be a real dialogue, conversation between the members of our panel, but then also a conversation involving all of you. after our panelists have delivered their brief remarks, i will open things up for question and answer session. i hope that all of you will feel free and encouraged to participate. my role in this panel is to strive is not a moderator. we're not expecting the back-and-forth of a televised presidential debate, but it would be nice if we could generate here in the room enough passion and variety of opinion to justify the need for a

moderator. [laughter] so again, welcome to wallop you. to begin our conversation, it's my pleasure to introduce madeleine albright. dr. albright served as the 64th secretary of state of the united states. at the time of her appointment, she was the highest-ranking woman in the history of the u.s. government. before that, she observed as the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. dr. albright now holds a professorship at the georgetown university school of foreign service and of the principle of a global strategy for in an investment advisory firm that both bear her name. dr. albright and her ba with honors from wellesley and holds advanced degrees from president bollinger's university, columbia. >> dr. albright. >> thank you very much. in thank you for telling everybody who i am because not everybody always knows. and i am truly delighted to be sitting under this new banner

and to really think wellesley for this great honor. nothing could make me happier than to be able to be a continuing part of wellesley and especially in this particular institute, which i think it's reflective of what we're going to talk about today, which is the importance of an integrated education that prepares people for dealing with the world in the 21st century. the 21st century i think started out in quite a different way from what people thought. and as requiring the people that emerge from our universities to have a variety of completely different talents. i did love wellesley more than i can tell anybody. some of my classmates are sitting here in front of me and they know homeported wellesley was was to me. i have to say the following thing. i was a political science major.

i could've been a history major because i attended equal credit than not. but the big deal, believe it or not, was when i took an economics course, it seemed like a real departure, that one that was doing political science would be interested in economics. i can't say i did very well, but it was a really big deal. what i find now and i am a professor, is that how important it is to learn a variety of different subjects that somehow impact on global affairs. i really and i underline the word privileged, i was privileged this morning to already share from two groups of the albright fellows. and getting a briefing from them, presentations on aspects of the millennium development challenges in terms of poverty and education. and these were groups of young women that came from different

disciplines, as well as different countries. and i think that what they brought to the discussion is evidence of how important it is to really explore global events through a variety of different disciplines. i believe that the curricula and in different universities needs to be adjusted in a way that creates something that is capable of working animal to faceted environment. i think it is important not only to have the basic history, but also to understand governmental systems, to be able to understand the culture, which require some knowledge of anthropology, and archaeology. and definitely require some knowledge of religion. and obviously, languages. and literature. so one can really broaden it. and to have a scientific

background. i know that when i was secretary of state, that it was very important to have people fully understand what happened in the door shuns or what health issues for about or how the law system in a particular country affected the way that people dealt with specific problems. i can multiply this. there is almost no area that in some way or another does not in fact impact on the emerging students and leaders in terms of the subjects that are out there. i think in many ways our universities have huge assignments, but in order to be in global affairs, i think it is important to have a very, very curriculum. and i must say that is one of the reasons i'm so excited about the institute because in fact, it is bringing together a variety of disciplines and to dance and i think they are learning from each other. the other part that i think is

the goal of the universities generally and that is also reflect did in this class of albright fellows is a variety of backgrounds from a variety of countries. i think that that is a part of education that is essential. the exchange programs that allow people to understand what is happening in other countries and that enriches, this is a bit selfish, but certainly enriches american students to have students from other countries. i know what enriches me as a professor to have students from other countries who actually challenge what it is that i'm brainwashing them with. last [laughter] so i also think that as we go forward, there is a whole role in the united states government now for public diplomacy, which in fact does encourage the exchange, visitors exchanges, student exchanges, and a variety of ways that we all get to know more about each other.

but the universities are absolutely central to this. and so, you can get the big job for universities to undertake this integrated comprehensive curriculum. but in order to create leaders for the 21st century, i think that it's essential to create these people. i did write a book last year, which was a memo to the president-elect. i did give it to president-elect obama and they wrote in it with the audacity to hope that this book will be useful. [laughter] the only reason i raise it is that just to tell you what the agenda was that i stated a year ago and it will tell you why you need these kinds of integrated educational systems and leaders. we have to figure out how to fight terrorism without creating more terrorists. we have to deal they broken nuclear nonproliferation system. we have to figure out how to minimize the gap between the rich and the poor, how to deal

with issues of energy environment and global pandemics. and how to deal with a global financial crisis and how to restore the good name of democracy. we have to figure out how to deal with talks that aren't going anywhere in north korea in the middle east. we have to figure out how to deal with people killing each other in africa, that people don't even notice. and we have to figure out how to deal with the various ethnic battles that are going on in other parts of the world. that is just mentioning a few of the issues. and so i'm very proud to be associated with wellesley whenever, but certainly within institute that is dedicated to doing this kind of integrated education and creating new women leaders because actually women do hold up most of the world. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you, secretary albright. i think we have a clear sense of the extent of the challenge and i'm going to ask the three presidents up here to respond to that challenge. and i'm going to turn first to buzzes president, kevin bottomley. and i said she needed no introduction would be important to the dean to introduce the president anyhow. i would just say it's one thing, since her arrival at wellesley 2.5 years ago, i think nothing, no project has been to your toucans hard than the creation of this institute. i think she has recognized from the moment she arrived here how perfectly this works with wellesley's mission and extends it into the next. >> thank you, andy. i want to thank all the members of the panel for being here today. it's very exciting to have you on campus and it's great to see such a great turnout and i say hello to those of you who are over at collins.

i think all of us believe that higher education has a significant and important role to play in global affairs. but i think depending on our types of institutions, i think we think of our educational imperative from a variety of perspectives. so i biked to begin with my perspective. and my perspective it that wellesley college is a liberal arts college, one designed especially for women. yet, or even a liberal education is on respected as a foundation of undergraduate education and even though it's distinctly american and even though it continues to serve as a model for undergraduate education in the united states, its reputation is dwindling. in a highly competitive world, where the students and their parents are increasingly asking the value of an education, one that provides specific skills

for successful jobs. they are questioning the expense and the types of liberal education we are providing these days. i'm going to take my few moments to tell you that we need liberal arts education more than we ever have before. and as we face the challenge of the world, we need a learning environment that really prepares students for greater global understanding. and in doing so, produces our future leaders. and has a natural address, president obama noted we had entered a new era of responsibility. and referring to that fact of course most of us know that already. few of our society's immediate major problems have solutions to be found within our own borders. most of our problems are global in nature. you know, globalization is not just a word to describe the movement of trade and finance.

it's a word that captures really our whole new reality and affects all of us in different ways. and the leaders we produce here at wellesley college must be able to act on a larger stage than they ever have had to before. so censorship takes on a broader meeting. citizen of the world moves from being a cliché to be in a reality. so while the role of liberal arts education hasn't changed, the world has. and with that comes the need to redefine and refocus our liberal arts curriculum. we need to educational innovation for liberal arts education to really remain in effect is as relevant today. so i'm going to post your questions. the first is as liberal arts college, what do we need to do? and secondly, what are the challenges in getting this done? so let me talk about the first question, that's a little

easier. what do we need to do to prepare leaders who will embrace a new responsibility as posed by obama? citizens that will really be able to take on the sense of the global world. you know, liberal arts education was originally designed to produce citizens capable of participating in public life. citizens who possess what one scholar refers to as a skills of freedom. liberal arts education accomplished this by creating a pedagogical structure that emphasized intense faculty student interaction and student to student interaction and develop the students ability to think creatively, to think innovatively, analytically and to be able to communicate effectively. good liberal arts education emphasizes also engagement. not only participation in the classroom, but for students to be able to go out into their campus, their community and be able to talk with others about the exciting things that they

are learning. we know that students do this well, while the students bring this kind of engagement to their computers when they graduate. we also know from our own allowance that there's an interest in lifelong learning. and i think it's clear that liberal arts education is but a logical structure really works. and there's some data to suggest that it does for you to so for instance, though only 3% of american college graduates were educated at a residential liberal arts college, alumni of these college account or 8% of forbes magazine's listing for the nation's wealthiest ceos in 1998. 19% of u.s. presidents and in a recent two-year period, nearly 20% of scientists like to do the prestigious national academy of sciences. i know from my own sort of personal interviews when i was the al and in the sciences that i worked at to the leading

finances idl, the vast majority of them do their undergraduate work at liberal arts colleges. and for the women, many of them at women's colleges. so yet even without success, the world is changing. and really to be a positive experience, i think liberal arts education needs to continue, but in a different kind of environment. it needs to figure out what kind of changes that needs to make to be relative. yet, pertaining that's all really good about the method. going to talk about three things that are important to happen in terms of liberal education. the first is really interdisciplinary. the 21st century will demand decision-making by people who have a broad sense of perspective. they come from different disciplines. and that's complicated because in general the academics are extremely specialized. get the problems we have to solve orange.

and so historically liberal arts education has been a teaching of a set of intellectual skills and not merely the teaching of a specific set of intellectual disciplines. so the question is, how can we get back to that? i think the way we can get back to that is that we need to broaden how we think of our educational mandate. interdisciplinary areas were not a traditional part of liberal arts education. but especially in the 20th century, in some instances they were actually look down upon, that faculty didn't like the area of disciplinary studies and smoke that still exist today. and i must change. we must realize that our existing disciplines purged through imperatives and that the same imperatives drive their new need for interdisciplinary. so how do we create a new interdisciplinary approach? how do we which interdisciplinary focus in some way? is awful easy to say that is not, but it's not very easy to accomplish. so there's several ways.

one of course is to create new interdisciplinary programs, all of our institutions have clearly done that. we do that your wellesley. seems like the obvious thing to do and it works. but there are challenges with doing that. which ones are the right programs? at any point in time you might say well this is the best program, but isn't the best program over time. and many of the decisions about what is the right program are based on the interest of the faculty at that particular institution at any point in time if the faculty leave, then it's hard to sustain the program. and then, new programs that are put into place, new programs that are truly interdisciplinary often aren't accompanied by adding a lot of new faculty. and so what you end up in faculty having to do a lot more work, sort of taxing the faculty time. so it's a struggle, if you will, at all of our institutions between the balance between what's disciplinary and was interdisciplinary. another way to create sort of an interdisciplinary focus is to

hire two new faculty. this infuses new ideas, broadens the curriculum and in general it's a great way to do it and we do it fairly successfully. i think that other challenges as well in a sense that there is a little bit of a bias against hiring phd's front interdisciplinary programs from other schools because often we are suspicious that those programs aren't as strong as the disciplinary programs. so you can see this as a vicious circle in its own right. i actually prefer the model of not creating a lot of new programs, but really bringing together multiple experts in the way -- into survey focused team. you know, as the issue changes then, the teams can change. so broadening the boundaries of disciplinary work, creating new habits for faculty collaboration, all of that would be service while. that in itself isn't easy to do. you have to create incentives for individual faculty members

to broaden or to modify their areas of expertise in a different way. but if they think they are desirable to sort of take the partitions between departments and make them more semipermeable if you will. so away to create that kind of desire for faculty just to cooperate, to think with one another about either their scholarship whether teaching and that creates an interdisciplinary approach. the second thing i think is important for our institutions to create a more of a global awareness and it's part of liberal arts education is team learning and problem solving. the student experience in higher education for the most part is very individualistic. yet tackling real-world problems requires the ability to work together in a problem-solving way. so i think one of the things we can do a liberal arts colleges is to have more examples of team approach to learning and solving problems. i thought when the celia dall

came here, i know some of the students at least heard her, she's the executive director of partners in health and heard her stories about her work and her wonderful work in haiti and particularly right now, for they had established an infrastructure and were some of the first responders in a moment of crisis. but she talked a lot about her road desires, which was to establish a health care presence in haiti. and what happens when that particular mission of hers was compromised by something like the need to build a new bridge, a bridge had been destroyed by the previous hurricane. the bridge separated communities and made it difficult for people to come and seek health care when they needed it. people were trying to cross the river and drowned and so the whole thing was not working for them. so here she was. she wanted to provide health care, but they need to do bridge. and as she said, she knew nothing about how to build a bridge. so what did she do? she facilitated a partnership with others so there was a team

approach to be able to create the ability to build that bridge into solve the problem that she needed to have. so i think that's really the essence of what we need to sort of practice doing it away. and that breaks into the third thing that i think we need to do in terms of really modernizing liberal arts education. and so, we need to practice what we learn. and we need to embrace the idea of practice. we need among other things, settings in which students can practice the skills they learned in the classroom. we need to sort of evaluate the effect of myths of our teaching by having students going out and be noble to take those messages out and use them in different ways. i think in some ways this type of experience is frowned upon as part of liberal arts education. and i would say to the extent that ideas can survive the real world test of experience, the more these ideas become a

concrete part of one's own intellectual being and not just something that a person has written a textbook. so i think properly emphasized internships, travel abroad, study abroad in other ways of practicing what you learn are essential parts of liberal arts education. and we should continue to think in innovative ways to do that. we need to always keep in mind that we're not educating ancient athenian citizen, but instead are educating the potential leaders of a modern and very complex world. so those are the things i think are important. these are the important principles i think for sort of revitalizing liberal arts education. so what do liberal arts colleges need to do? well, they -- we need both to maintain what we always have done well, which is the traditional liberal arts curriculum. we'd interdisciplinary approach

is to complement those curricular ideas. we need a team approach for some examples in the types of learning we do. science is a good example of that. and we need to practice what we learn. for those i think are the lessons for upgrading a liberal arts education. i want to talk just a moment more about leadership. and i think that's very important. how do with liberal arts colleges prepare students for leadership? and i'm going to begin saying that we do this well at wellesley college. i point to a great example over here. but i'm a big believer that the development of leadership skills actually starts in the classroom. i think it's easy to think that students could just watch and take executive leadership training and just do that to become a great leader. i'm also a big believer that you can put a smart person and executive leadership training and he would never learn to be a leader.

so i think the classroom experience is incredibly important enough for the engagement perkinson. i think before anyone can exercise good leadership, a student must first have the confidence that comes from mastering the subject. the insight that comes from really thoroughly grounded knowledge. the ability to think creatively, analytically and the skills to bring this way of thinking to others. that's really what innovation is all about. if you do this in the classroom, then students can learn by trial and never and they can practice those ideas. you know, you learn ideas, you learn what ideas you have that are good ideas and to continually evolve and your intellectual being. and this fosters i think a sense of confidence and mastering that is very important for their own development leadership skills. but having done that, we must also expand the opportunities for global learning outside the traditional curriculum. we need to provide the opportunity to solve problems in

teams. we need to be able send students out in the world and forms of internships, study abroad, let them test the things that they've learned in those classrooms. and i would just like to win with just a small statement famous for all of these reasons that we created the madeline albright institute for global affairs. it is in itself an innovative way to educate students to be global leaders. and we use the principles i've just talked about in order to do that. we designed the curriculum using extensive expertise and our faculty and visiting professors who bring different respect as to the students. you know, it's really interesting to think about the faculty that is taught in the three week intensive course. many disciplines in terms of our faculty have been representative. biology, history, political science, sociology, women and gender studies, philosophy, east

asian languages and literature just to give you an example. and in the crack is yours will common and lectured have come from many areas including academic centers and institutes ngos and government agencies and other places as well. so the institute fellows have really had a rich experience of listening to many different perspectives. they themselves offer a great diversity of perspectives. they come from 26 different majors and they are very international. about a third i think of that class is international. this experience also provides a practice i was talking about. the students have to attack or really tackle u.n. millennium goals, development goals. these are major important goals put forward by the u.n. they have to figure out how to think about and solve these kinds of goals. and during the process they need to do research and discuss their ideas with experts.

they have to present their best thinking on this to secretary albright herself for discussion and critique. students will then go out to internships to practice again. what if i learned and how can i use this in a different setting? >> and then the students i think this is one of the things we all take for granted. they bond over this intense experience. we have 40 students who are living with each other and have been for three weeks. this was a deep immersion experience and able themselves as a group have a sort of a network of expertise if you will. and if you can imagine ten years from now there will be 400 women in the world who will help us network of expertise based on this kind of a learning experience. and most importantly, the students of how to him again now, practice this using the team approach. i think this is really interesting. you've sent out a students who aren't packing an important human development goal and millennium development goal and

they themselves all have individually great ideas. yet they have to come to some sort of consensus is something they are going to present to secretary albright. so in another cell that requires a debate practice of diplomacy and how to get together and work towards consensus. so madeleine k. albright institute for global affairs i think is an innovative way to think about our liberal arts education. it's a powerful example of what higher education can do to increase and improve its role in global education. and i think to expand higher ed's role in really thinking about world problems. thank you. [applause] >> i'm delighted to welcome my next speaker, dr. beverly daniel tatum. dr. tatum is the ninth president of stillman college.

she is a clinical psychologist by training, who is the author of several acclaimed works on the role of race in the classroom and racial identity development. before her appointment as president that stallman, dr. tatum served for significant. as a faculty member, a dean and acting president at assistant institutions and olio college. she earned her ba at wesleyan university and her advanced degrees at the university of michigan. welcome. >> thank you here to monday begin by saying how honored i am to be here, certainly the secretary albright and with my college presidents and what a wonderful opportunity this is how this institute for global affairs congratulations to you, president bottomly. i'm delighted to be back at wellesley. many of you may know i spent a year here as a visiting scholar at the stone center and so it's a delight be here again today. and this issue of global engagement and what it means for

our students and our campuses is something that is quite important to us that spellman. but i want to begin by telling a story which may seem not directly connect it, but i think in some very important ways it is. and i want to start by saying that spellman is located in atlanta is probably all know. and yesterday was the celebration of martin luther king day, which is a big event in atlanta, the home birthplace of martin luther king. and so, i was at ebenezer baptist church for the memorial service, commemorating what would've been his baby first birthday yesterday morning. and many of the speakers and national figures and international figures come and speak on this occasion. were talking about just the degree of change in our society has experienced over the time of what would've been dr. king's lifetime, our lifetimes. and i was reflecting on that because spelman, being located

in atlanta was very much involved in that civil rights era that was being reflected on. and i was thinking about the fact that in atlanta, today's students at spelman and other places in the city take for granted the kinds of changes that have taken place. the fact that students can pretty much trouble wherever they want in the city, go 20 stores, even in a restaurant, all of that, wasn't always that way of course. and i want to share with you an editorial that was written in 1960 by students, students and the atlanta university center, the presidents of the student government associations at spelman college, morehouse college, morris brown college and clark college in atlanta university. they all got together and wrote an editorial that appeared in the atlanta constitution in 1960 and really start the beginning of a series of sedans and

protest. many people think of the student activism in the atlanta region of having been led by dr. king. but in fact it was initially triggered by students and you supported them in their activism. what i wanted to share this with you briefly. because it was quite a remarkable statement. it was titled, an appeal for human rights. and it says, we the students of the six affiliated institutions form in the atlanta university center, clark, morehouse come morris brown implement colleges, atlanta university and the interdenominational theological center have joined our hearts, minds and bodies in the cause of getting those rights, which are inherently rss numbers of the human race and citizens of the united states. we pledge our unqualified support to those students in this nation who have recently been engaged in a significant movement to secure certain long-awaited rights and privileges. this protest, like the busboy and my camera has shocked many

people throughout the world. why? because they had not quite realize the unanimity of spirit and purpose, which motivates the thinking and action of the great majority of the people. the students who instigate and participate in the sitdown protests are dissatisfied, not only with the existing conditions but what the snaillike speed with which they are being understood. every normal human being wants to walk the earth with dignity and the poor of any and all prescriptions placed upon him because of race or color. in essence, this is the meaning of the sitdown protest that are sweeping this nation today. we do not intend to wait passively for those rights, which are already legally and morally ours to be meted out was one of the time. today's youth will not fit i submissively i'll been denied all of the rice, privileges and joys of life. we want to state clearly and on equivocally that we cannot tolerate in a nation professing

democracy and among people professing christianity. the discriminatory conditions under which the negro is living today in atlanta, georgia, supposedly one of the most progressive cities in the south. the ad which was a full-page ad when not to state statistics about inequities in school funding for segregated schools. they challenge the segregation federally funded hospitals, challenged the absence of black lace and firefighters, police questions about inequities in school funding and more of the issues that were important to them in 1960. even at a time when they were still being denied the right to vote. it was a very powerful and courageous statement that many people believed it could not possibly have been written by students because it was such a bold and courageous statement. but in fact the we might ask, well how did the students get up the nerve to write this essay and take this public vision? and i had an opportunity to have that conversation with two of

those former students. one of whom is sending very familiar to, marian wright edelman who was at the time a student at spelman and was involved in the writing of this ad. and the other was rosalyn popa was at the time the student government association at spelman. and both are back on campus a few months ago. and we were having a chat about their experiences in the 60's and what they talked about was that the real motivation to get involved in the civil rights movement was stunned by their experience students abroad. but it was in fact their travel abroad to make clear to them that they did not need to put up with what they had experienced in the united states. they were asked of you brought students have spent time in france in paris and they talked about how liberating it was for them as young people to be able to come and go as they wanted to, to be able to shop wherever they wanted to or travel without

the burdens of desegregation but they were experiencing in the south, from where they had grown up in where they were going to school. and so, he really gave me new insight into the importance of helping our students have global engagement, that we often talk about what it means in terms of developing leadership and that is of course quite important. but i think we sometimes overlook the fact that those experiences, not only change them, but it changes us as a society. in terms of an this is a very concrete example, that those students were inspired by the freedoms they experienced in europe to come back an advocate for the same freedoms in the united states. so without a sort of the contact, i think it is really important for us to create the interdisciplinary opportunity for global engagement. and that is something we've been quite focused on a spelman during my tenure as president

since 2002. certainly one of the things we know is that in the united states, most students do not have the experience, not just students of color, but most of us in general, do not travel abroad. it is still a relatively small number. and i know a school like wellesley probably a very high percentage of students who study abroad. certainly that was by students at mount holy college as well. we found our many students we want to travel abroad but are able to because primarily for financial reasons. and it's not that they're financially doesn't trouble with them, but many students are working their way through school, if they're dependent upon part-time employment to support their educational experiences, it's hard to leave that employment behind and then still be able to fund once college education. so we have been very focused on trying to create opportunities for students, not only to have more financial support, to be able to have that kind of

transformative experience as marian wright edelman said or rosalyn pope did back in the 60's. but also to create other kinds of opportunities that they hold students expand their own understanding of the world in which we live, this increasingly flat world. but also, as meaning that may or may not include study abroad. so for example, we have had now for two or three years a series of alternative spring break projects. in particular, there have been a group of young women who have established a connection with an ngo in senegal and understand how the girls, which is a program focused on the creation of educational opportunity for rural girls in senegal. in one of our students, who was studying abroad in senegal, learned about this project, came back to spelman and talked with her colleagues in the student

government association about watching the student government initiative to send -- to raise money for the 10,000 girls project and meant to travel back to senegal third spring break to deliver the funds and to help with this project. they have done this now a couple years in a row and it's been quite exciting for those students many of whom i've never been out of the country before to be able to engage with young people around this particular project, looking at the impact of education and the lives of girls in a country where access to education is still quite limited for girls. and as i'm talking about this project, and thinking that it does incorporate the kind of ideas that you are talking about, president bottomly, in terms of the teamwork involvedcommon terms about the raising of funds and getting themselves there. in the most recent trip they were there hoping to build a library in the task of just

doing that working collectively to work outside one's area of expertise, but yet make an impact homestays with families and for many of these students who themselves in some cases are first-generation or coming from a low-income background to recognize that however economically disadvantaged when they feel, it is not merely -- comes nowhere close to the kind of limited access, limited resources of the senegalese students with whom they're working in a shift that perspective that students can have. we are also trying to think about how to engage our students, not just as they travel abroad, whether it's to senegal or chicano or to many of the more traditional countries when they spend a semester away. but also to think about how we can expand our sense of global

connections right on the campus every day. we do not have the kind of international student population that one finds her wellesley at spelman, but we do have the location of a banana, which is an increasingly international city. so creating opportunities for visiting dignitaries who are passing to the city of atlanta to come to campus to engage with us and to use technology in the ways that we can so that students may have the opportunity to engage has also been a very important part of our thinking about global problem-solving. for example, not long ago we had a group of students who were looking on environmental issues, sustainability. and we were invited to participate in a conference with a group of student had to buy women's college. and being able to do that, using technology to have students in atlanta at spelman talking about

the kinds of environmental issues that are important to them with students in dubai have been a similar kind of conversation using technology is of course something the 21st century allows us to do that was not part of the experience when i was in college certainly were, you know, even just a few years ago. so these are some of the ways in which we think about helping students of color, particularly students who are economically disadvantaged begin to think more globally, to expand our presence and to become the kind of problem solvers that i think all of us value in that liberal education gives us the tools to do. ..

>> and the columbia law school and served as the law clerk for chief justice on the united states for supreme court. welcome. >> thank you. let me just begin by saying i think it is ideal new educational adventure. it represents and symbolizing exactly what needs to be done in american higher education. i think you can't have a better symbol for that than secretary albright.

i say that not only as one of her presidents, because she has many presidents. but also because i think that it really is where the world is going. and the subject is higher education in universities and colleges in a global world. each of us, i think, is saying more or less the same thing. i'll try to put it in my own words and say how we have been thinking about this at columbia and trying to very quickly. first, congratulations on this wonderful achievement. i start from a sense that university are and colleges are great achievement of american society. they are vital, vigorous, doing extremely well, and also very international in many ways.

a lot of international students come to our universities and colleges, many of our faculty have projects here and abroad and are experts about parts of the world. we have networks of universities and colleges throughout the world. american higher education in many senses is is already very global. however, we also live in a society that has serious limitations. when it comes to thinking about international and global matters in some ways our society is very prudential and very protected from what is going on.

it's from the united states and it's isolations because the borders, culture, and traditions and the like. it's especially concerns to someone like me who thinking about the first amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech that we are getting less and less international news. the number of foreign bureaus that have been closed just in the last year by the major press organizations is astonishing. and it's a grave, grave concern. we know about the international news of the american republican is less today than it was a few years ago. american universities and colleges are very international, we live in a society that in many ways is leading the world, and yet we have issues of prudentialism and there are real concerns that we're getting less and less engageed. second major point is when we talk about globalization in the

world, today we're talking about globalization. i think we need to be clear about what it is that's really going on. i think it's over simplified, but it's nevertheless right for this occasion to say that's what global ration is today is primarily driven by market, business, financial forces. there are many other activity that is are shaping the world. but i think there's nothing that is more powerful in reshaping our world today than business and finance. it's the astonishing embrace of free markets around the world in countries that have been authoritarian and tollaltarian and with different forms of economic organization that have

embraced the system of capitalism. and it is transforming the world. one of the things about market is they move very rapidly. all you have to do is go do china once every six months or once every three years or once every decade and you see right before your eyes the fan festations of what markets can do in transforming the world for good. because a lot of people have been lifted out of extreme poverty, hundreds of millions and for that climate change, issues of integration of financial systems that need regulation and the like. there are many, many ways in which for good and bad our world is being reshaped. globalization, therefore, oversimplified is primarily an economic phenomenon that, with massive, cultural, political

implications. third major point is because all of this has happened so rapidly, and because that is the nature of globalization, the driving force, with universities and colleges are not in the game to the extent that we should be. our roll is to understand what's happening in the world, to interpret it's deeper forces, to think about, to do research on it, to look at it objectively, to critique what's happening, to offer solutions to problems, to try to relate to the outside world as an academic enterprise, and we simply are not doing that sufficiently. and we're not doing it sufficiently because we don't have the amount of expertise and we don't have the amount of what i call general knowledge to do this. all you have to do was ask

yourself how much expertise do we have on our american campus campuses? and how much general knowledge do we have about china today? it is painfully, embarrassingly thin, that's only china. the rest of the world is out there. and we have far too little work that's being done on what's happening. so the big question is what do you do then in the face of this? three options have presented themselves. there are many things to be done. we're building up the school of international public affairs, more international students at the undergraduate level, but i think that's really not sufficient. we need to get out into the world and to build the expertise we need and the general knowledge we need to confront this new world it's been yes quited just in the past 10 to 40 years.

so there are three different ways to do it. one is to take what we already do. i mentioned at the beginning, with students study abroad, et cetera, et cetera, and just do more of that. perfectly reasonable response. a second option is the set up branch campuses around the world and many universities are doing that. the problem with setting up branch campuses around the world starts from a fundamental fact about universities and colleges which is we lose money at whatever we do. we are extremely good at losing money. and therefore we need money in order to do what we co. and the other thing that money can give you to set up branch campuses tend to be singapore. therefore, it's no surprise that most of the branch campuses being set up today are in dubai,

abu, and singapore. we opened one for jordan and beijing for china this past march and this coming march we'll open up ones who redeck -- rededicate one for paris, mumbai, and then for africa. the aye idea is very simple. to provide opportunities for students and fault to work on serious projects that are defied by the local regional institutions including government. the grounded with work, working with local institutions,

universities, et cetera. to try to get us out there to make a constitution to the extent that we can. but more importantly in a way to be able to built up the experience level that will lead to the expertise level that will also generate the general knowledge level that we need to deal with the world as it is. that's our strategy. that's how we're thinking about it. thanks. >> thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you to the panelist. this is the point where we hope to turn it over to all of you. i should say, they are fine up here. i this i they will be challenging. so if you could stand to ask your question, i think there will be microphones going around. it may be good it wait in fact for the microphones to arrive.

so, yes, please? marshal who had summoned by putin to ask how putin could bring russia into the new world. actually in the end, why don't you just give me four of your brightest girl and i'll bring them holmes to -- home to wesley. i was wondering about the fellows. are the fellows thinking 10, 15 years until one day they will be in the seat like dr. albright is sitting? >> yes. >> we should have a quick -- [laughter] >> we should have an answer for that down here. i think. >> you have to have gone to wesley to be secretary of

state. >> yes? >> so i'm actually dreaming of becoming an academic and not a secretary of state. but who knows. so my question is you have all mentioned several academia in facilitating among students and also engaging other academics in cooperation. do you think that the current system of tenure in the united states is in fact hampering or enhancing the academics to do that? >> good question. >> yup. >> well, no president up here is going to say -- [laughter] >> we could talk to you privately afterwards. >> i would, you know, i think certainly president bollinger is

right, your question is interesting one from a college view or professor. >> i always knew when he found his niche, he could. >> in my job, i've been to japan a couple of times. i feel very successful. i just want people to look at 43, feel that i've succeeded, and want to be themselves.

[no audio] [no audio] >> the stereotypes of the system is somewhat fair in that we all become very specialized. we all look for places that we can be original and creative.

that tends to put pressures on us to make smaller and smaller areas. the larger the area gets the less we're able to communicate. all of that is really important. it needs to be broken down. but it is a fact that people in universities are amazingly motivated, faculty to teach well, to learn well. and the main job that we have in universities is to make it possible for faculty and for ourselves to have that freedom, to in fact -- one the problems of the globalization is if i want to learn and change and talk to people in the like, that can really change things. it's our job for to provide opportunities.

i think that what is very important part in terms of discussioning global institute and the kind of roll that people can have in terms of global issues is the going back and force. and bringing the experience of one to the other. especially given the fact that this is a lot of the subjects have to do with governance or have to do with various aspects of running society. it requires some contact between the academic and the practitioner. and i think that is what's so enriching. i'm actually not a tenured proffer. but it does give awe certain amount of freedom to be able to know that you can come back and teach, and what you bring from having had a practitioners experience. those two things, i think, would go together.

>> all of you guyed address the importance and turns aboard as the college student. yet no one really emphasissed the importance of learning a foreign larynx. i know at many higher education, you can easy place out of learning a foreign language. i know he's at wellsley, you can place out easily. i'm wondering if you believe there's a problem where we can easily choose to speech english and not really learn another foreign language and whether or not this needs to be changed and how it can be changed? >> i personally believe that you need to learn a foreign larynx. it doesn't even matter which one. but i do think it is highly important. what does happen and i can testify, is more and more people speak english.

there's a tendency to think you don't need to learn another language. my knowledge of language, first of all, you have an interpreter, because not everyone knows the language, it gives you time to think about it twice. you also, gives you an understanding of the history of and allture of achart you can never get if you don't speak the language. i think it's unfortunate if you can opt out of a language. i think, obviously, language, i don't speak is chinese, i think it would be very important and arabic. i do think it's very, very important. i just come from a big meeting of nato people, everybody speaks english expect for the french,

who insist, no matter what. there's games being played. i do think it's important to speak another language. >> to add to those comments that we continue to have a language requirement at spellman, and have just introduced counties which i'm happy to say. i think for the reasons that secretary albright has mentioned, i studied the language, i'm not fluent. i studied. as i traveled, i studied french andive also had the chance to study spanish. just being able to use it even a little bit makes a difference in terms of the ability to connect with people. i think it's very important. >> okay. it's a hand up in the back. yes? marry? right ahead. i'm c.b. while and art con serr

tour, my wonderful field was inspired here by my study at wellsley by practical art in the art history course. i have a wonderful career that has been a international career because of all of my wonderful colleagues around the world who were involved in saving cultural heritage. that's part of the great gifts of a liberal arts education is including music and the arts. and i haven't enough heard speak about history, geography, science, and so forth. but i haven't heard any speaking about the great value of for the history of the culture of the world. >> i've made it a big point to have cultural diplomacy.

i think that is one of the ways that people understand each other very well through art. what was irritating, the secretary and i traveled. i wanted to go to a museum. the press, the one you opt freedom for, criticized me for being a tourist. and yet i really do think that in fact you can learn a great deal. as far as music is concerned, i have just come from the 20th anniversary of the velvet revolution in czech republic. jazz played a huge role in movements and liberal movements throughout central and eastern europe. it is the language of america that really was the way that people learned a great deal about our culture and used it to express our own desires for freedom. it was very interesting. lots of little bits in the 60s. i just came from a concert

there. with joan and blue reed who looks a bit older. basically, there really is the sense that culture, art, music is very much of a international language that people truly do understand. >> yeah, i would agree strongly with that. i guess from a wellsley perspective, we're strong in the arts. we have a director in the international connections. it seems like kind of a natural to be able to think how we can connect with other constitutions whether they be mere -- museums or museums with higher ed or art can be a way of educating students about culture. >> yes? four rows behind you. >> i think this is a great forum. i'd just like to suggest to

point -- two points, one of them is the internet and the related technologies are i believe revolutionizing the world as rapidly as the spread of the markets. and that's an a important tool for universities to embrace globalization. the other point i would make or suggest is that constitute of higher education are fundamentally conservative. you've mentioned that in the context of tenure. i think that university leaders can over come that conservativism by the appointments they make within their fact elty and the kinds of programs that this represents that they embrace choosing the promotions of the faculty

remembers who are kind of the most adventurist, the most interdisciplinary, i think that's a charge for you presidents. >> i guess i would i would -- i agree completely with certainly the first point, technology of communication satellites as well as internet are transformative forces both because, i mean they are assisting the economic integration of the world, but they are also doing other things. that's clearly right. and i've just written about this as well. i'm oversimplifying. the thing about university presidents appointing people, is an interesting one because all of us here would say if only that were true. we would be much happier than we are.

universities are notoriously said to be decentralized and one of the things that means is the departments and fact elty really are self-governing in so many ways, including, especially by appointments. and yet, going to the point about they -- we underestimate the importance of reason and discussion in university governance. one the things we can do is talk about persuade people to set up something like the albright institute which i'm sure is a way of bringing in people to the institutions who otherwise would not want or perhaps receive a standard traditional appointment, we've done that with, -- just take an example, the committee on global thought. you could bring in to be a member of the columbia community, even though he doesn't want a tenure position.

and it's not clear that he fits within the literature department or the english department as a -- but that's an example of where really you can help purr suede people that this is a good way to go. i'm thinking about what you said in the global research centers. all of them might have the global research center. they'll be in different parts of the world. that technology would allow all of those centers to be connected up. you don't want to rely on the expertise in one institutions, but a communication between all a institutions. that deals with finance and markets are driving things quickly. institutions of higher education are slow. if we networked, we'd be pretty fast. there's a lot of opportunity to do that kind of thing in the future. >> i think we will very shortly, that is all of us, will have

classes in which people will be plugged in from beijing and from africa, and we'll all be taking the class together. >> hi. i did not present this morning. but i did have the opportunity to watch secretary albright grill the group on universal education. and one of the questions that she asked asked them to talk about whether they should -- they the solution should be allocated resources to domestic problems and not necessarily those abroad. so to turn it back on you, i'm curious what the roll of higher education is in solving local, domestic problems, i know that we are putting this great focus on global problems and setting

up these really good global research center. how can universities and colleges deal with local problems? i think all of the goals have problems in america as well? spellman college is soon to be 129 years old. in many ways it was established to address a local problem. which was access to education. if you can imagine that, you know, educational opportunities after the civil war were nonexistent, the founders really saw the opportunity to educate women who were then become leaders in the other communities and transform and how we think about communities today is much broader. but still this is a need to focus locally. there is still the case certainly for spellman which is

located in an economic good area to think how to impact. both in terms of improving educational opportunities through the resource that is we can provide, whether those are human capital resources in terms of student or fact faculty. but also in terms of economic development. we are working on all of those issues in concert with other colleges in our region. our house college who is our neighbor, et cetera, the idea that we with should make things better where we are is certainly an important part of the constitutional mission. at the same time we recognize that we are everywhere. you know, our students don't just graduate and live in the neighborhood. they move out beyond as you like to say the enter to learn, the exit to serve. the question is how do you infuse that commitment to making that choice to change the world, making a positive impact

whenever you are. i think that's part of the philosophical that is really the many institutions, and that we, you know, on the core value that you hope your -- if you haven't done the community service and been involved, if you haven't learned to think not only about volunteering on a homeless shelter but also understanding the economics of homelessness or mental health policy that might contribute or you know, sort of thinking about the big picture at the same time that you are acting locally. that's very important. so we have measured the role the languages play in the global affairs and also art. i would like to talk about

distribution requirements for a few quick seconds. it's not because i am a senior who has yet to take the requirements in the last semester, but i was wondering because distribution requirements seem to be the core of the spirit for liberal arts education which is to make us get out of the comfort zone and explore area that we normally wouldn't. sometimes it can be seen as restrictive. i was just wondering what your opinion is how we would go about achieving that compromise between having the wonderful policy in place, but at the same time, dealing with what might be preventing us for achieving the things that this is entitled to achieved. >> obviously directed at you. >> we were. >> that's a definite answer. what are you talk abouting? >> another president. >> so we were having this conversation actually over lunch about what we do in terms of the requirement for students. and i think we all have a little bit of different perspective on that. we have -- fairly, you know, we

don't have a lose curriculum. we have a lot of requirements. you have a core curriculum. you have something that's in between. what the advantages and disadvantages of these? we could probably all play in. i haven't been here long enough for the implications of that. it's a hard think to think about. it's becomes a brown model. sort of create your own major. that appeals to some students but not all students. so figuring out the sort of right balance with between too much rigidity and enough flexibility, think is a hard one. that's probably one of the areas that's the smallest to move. so as a student's desire to have an educational experience that reflects more of what they think they need to do in the world, the requirement kind of lag behind the two decades. i think it's a complicated problem. >> it's -- i agree completely. i think we have this uneasy

relationship and universities between international sort of the defense of what is important knowledge and external reality about what's important and for humanity. so i went to law school in the late 1960s. and that was a period in which american constitutional law was sort of the lens through which a lot of america was being reshaped. whether it was freedom of speech or criminal procedure or electoral reform, that was a place in which people were framing questions about the world. so they got energy law or oil and gas in the 1960s and one course on american constitutional law. by 1970 when i was law school in the law professor, they would now be 10 courses on american constitutional law and no course on oil and gas.

bell, american constitutional law is still very, very important. but i would say it's not as important as it was 30, 40 years ago. oil and gas happens to be really, really important now. so it's just one example of where -- one tiny example of where the outside world shifts and we need to adjust what we think are important subjects. that takes time and discussion in universities. >> i would simply add to that to just simply say that when i reflect on my own undergraduate experience, i went to wesleyan university at the time when it was much like brown and to some extent, perhaps still is. i appreciated that. that was one of the things that drew me there. at the same time, i work in a environment today where there are requirements. and i think that's a good thing. it's not necessarily either or.

but i do think it's very important for us to make clear why we have the requirements that we have. that what i think is the worse-case scenario is for student to check off of the box and move on. i think there has to be some sense of integration or understanding as to what is the value that's being communicated. if we have identified constitutional law or oil and gas, why? and being able to articulate that. so that students whether they like it or not can understand the rational. >> we're drawing towards the closing. i see a number of hands still up. i think if we can, especially the back, if we can get a few rapid-require questions and maybe one answer from up here, we can take three or four more. there are right by the corner of the wall right there. yup.

>> good afternoon, i was interested in what dr. tatum said about the letter that you read. i was wondering, i didn't hear anything from any of the presidents about supporting the roll within your student bodies or bringing that into curriculum. the other quick thing was in terms of learning, i was wondering if you are thinking at all about opportunities that aren't necessarily anti-mr. centric. looking in ecological but in world affairs or global affairs. >> are we going to take a bunch of them? >> that's a question on the table. maybe we have some others back there. mary, we can? >> hi, i'm here with my colleagues from harvard education school we're higher education graduate students. i was wondering if you could

speak briefly about the roll of women's colleges in most developed countries into the united states has not only narrowed the gender gap between men and women in receiving college degrees but also reversed it. i also have a question, if tout throw it out there, quickly, as a graduate student, higher education, and wellsley alum. my question is quite selfish. it's just what advice can you give some of those administerrers in how to lead in a global society? >> that was my question as well. thank you. [laughter] >> all all righty. one more and then we'll have to get some answers, i think. >> i think this is the agenda for our next hour and a half. and unfortunately, we don't have that. >> hello. i'm pat i'm from afghanistan. i'm going to make a short

comment on how to comments you made about change that internationally education can have on people. and for me as an international student, i am thankful that while we have given me 100% grants and scholarships to attend wellsley and the kind of effect and life that i have seen. it's almost the sames the pamphlet dr. tatum read on the 1960s and the privileges that they can have and experience really i can't have in afghanistan. having come here, now i know that woman lack there. and i am hoping to get some of the leadership skills back home with me some day. but i don't think i am prepared for it yet. i am a senior. i am graduating. and still, i think i need more of professional experience to be able to do that. although, i have gained a lot of, you know, leadership skills. so my question is that for the

albright fellows who are getting great leadership skills and are finding solutions for the problems, the goal that is -- my country faces them. my advice on how they can put these skills they are learning into action in the real world. thank you. >> i think that's a really rich series of questions which we just said. our panelist would like to make any comments about any of them, all of them. by way of conclusion. >> well, i can just start. i can't resist about the women's college. i think madelyn would start before me. i would just say that it's not a level playing field for women out there. not only is it not level here in the united states, but it's not level out there in the world. so i think that there is a great

need to educate women as leaders to go out and help to think about issues of women, but also themselves to develop their own leadership skills along the way. i think there's sort of two issues, being interested in helping women in the world, and then there's the issue of providing an education that's really dedicated for women that recognizes the importance of being able to be in a classroom with all women and to be able to build confidence, build mastery of material this a way that will really lead to success for that person's life going out. i think women's colleges do this particularly well. and, you know, there's a lot of evidence out there for it. i think that the whole thing about looking around at the united states at not being sort of equal playing field is to look at just government, for example, you know? how many women are holding government jobs? how many women politicians do we

have? how many women are involved in the decision making situations in the world. i would argue that women's education is particularly important. >> final thoughts? >> i would like to speak to the issue of activism and action and taking action. i -- long before i was a college administrator, was a professor and i taught one the things was it divided up into three parts. what, so what, and now what? and i think that whatever we're teaching, we ought to be asking whether we're addressing those questions. i think a lot of times we talk about the what, whatever that visionary content is. sometimes we talk about the so what in terms of the implications. we don't necessarily talk about the now what. how do we use that information to solve real problems. i do think that's an important part of the educational experience. i think that certainly what we heard described here about the albright institute speaked to a now what component in terms of

the team, assignments, and the problem solving. i do think that we should always ask the question education for what? for what purpose? and that's really what the now what piece is. i think it's important. i think that many of my colleagues would yeah where me. we are not always as consistent in encouraging that kind of exfloor ration as we could be. >> well, i also might want to say something about the activism point. i was very struck by with president tatum's example. very powerful point and anti-dote about the ways that in one comes to understand one's own justices going out in world. that's a problem that we have. but i think she would say, and i would say, it's not the roll of

a university to create activist students in the sense of political activist. it is to help create citizens. it is to help us and students understand what the world is like. and to raise every possibly question about it is it just, is it moral, is it ethical? is this the right way to achieve these things if you have these goals. we have to be very, very careful that we do draw that line ultimately, successfully between creating political activism and let's just call it citizen activism. it's -- i am all in favor of universities creating an environment in which we can understand the world and debate how to make it better.

but i am also equally committed to the principal that we are not driving a political agenda. and i'm not suggesting that you said by the use of the term activist, that it could be a political agenda. it's just a distinction that i think is important to draw. >> well, a number of last questions kind of came up here. i do think, the activism issue is a very interesting one. and when i was in -- here winnny and i did this. this was a small group of in thes here at that time. and going in and campaigning for ms. stevenson. they are very active. i think it made us feel that we were a part of a changing variety of things. and i think president, you are ab a salutely right in terms of being a part of it. because i had the opposite

experience at columbia. i was doing my comprehensives in 1968 when i was a young mother trying to get through it all. and there was all of the rioting at columbia. and you couldn't study for -- so it was kind of interesting to me clearly a lot of things were going in '68 for worth students expressing themselves about. but it clearly disrupted a lot of the issues and questions. i think it's an interesting point as to how far you go with it. i also, but now i can see activism, for instance, you were talking about new orleans this morning when i was talking about doing something locally. and a lot of the students at dew lain were trying to repair enormous. that is an appropriate kind of community service or at georgetown, a lot of the students were the moving force behind doing something about darfur. so that there is a lot of kind

of networks and linkages that i think are very important, kind of leads to the question about, i do think that, universities can do a lot about promote the ing ecology and worrying about the environment in a lot of different ways through teaching about it, as well as encouraging people to do something about it. in terms of leadership, i think that -- and women's colleges. i fully believe in importance of having an education that teaches you to express yourself. i was thrilled that i went to wellsley, i'm also thrilled that i went to columbia. i think you have to learn to operate within both environments. i now teach at a coeducational university. and i think that the different skills that are required to make it in a coeducational world. i've mentioned this to people.

my classes are a zoo. i think women have learned to interpret. you are less likely to do that in a fully women's setting. i do think that women's colleges teach leadership in a way that you don't get anywhere else. you mentioned the women's college in dewier. what is very interesting is i think we have a -- this goes to your point. i think we have certain kind of characterizations of women in muslim society thes that don't always match up with the truth. while clearly, the situation is horrible in afghanistan, i have to tell you, the most feminist group short of wellsley was in dubai. all of the women were covered. they tested me in a way that i haven't been tested. i said my normal thing. the middle east is a terrible mess, one women with said it wasn't until you got here. there were a lot of pushback, a

lot of very interesting points. and i think that clearly, the women that the have the opportunity to be at that university have learned to express themselves, be activist within their own societies. i think we have to be really careful about making judgments about whether one place serving better than another. i do think that the most important part about leadership is that you can't lead alone. and i am somebody that so believes in networking and developing a group around me. which is why i'm so thrilled with this institute. because as you had pointed out, president, this is going to be a network of people that will work together over a very long period of time. and they will develop, those particular roots. and a variety of ways, and leaders need to have support groups and need to work with each other. now you've all heard me say this. but this is the place to say it more than any place else, women

have to help each other. there's a special place in hell for women who don't. >> well, i regret very much having to draw this conversation to a conclusion. it's been a really fascinating and far-ranging conversation. i particularly want to thank our distinguished panelist for being here today and thank all of you. so. thank you thank you [inaudible

conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all this week, booktv primetime. the senate is out. we are joined by booktv producer, the wealth of nations coming up. adam smith books. what's the discussion about that? >> bill, we're going to look at adam's smith wealth of nations. this book was first published in 1776. we're going to try to get to an understanding of what the book

is really about. we're going to be joined by samuel who is a professor at the university of illinois-chicago. we're going to be joined also by russell roberts who is at george mason university. they are going to look at two different aspects of the writing and how it's been interpreted. >> and our viewers will be able to participate by phone calls and e-mails, and tweets; correct? >> that's correct. we now have other 9,500 twitser followers. >> is there a specific tweeter hash tag? >> it's just booktv, one work. >> what's ahead on wednesday, for example? >> wednesday we're going to look at the current economic situation. we're going to be joined by a senior fellow at the council of foreign relations. it's also author of the book called "the forgetten man" the history of the depression. we're also going to be joined by dean baker" false profits,

recovering from the economic." bothooki at the economy from different angle. >> on thursday, the focus is military. >> more specifically by afghanistan. we're going to be joined byset jones, and also mark moyer, his work a question ofommand. >> we wrap up the week at friday at 8. what then? >> friday we're going to talk about "silent spring" looking at ann smith, rachel carson in regard to the environment. both of the books are talked about in the circles. we'll be joined by the biographer. >> it is booktv primetime all this week. cleve corner, producer, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, bill. >> we're going to take you next

to attorney general michael mukasey and author mark stein, looking at national security policy. this is from a conference at the hudson institute in new york. it runs just under two hours. >> welcome to the third and final discussion of the day. [laughter] >> because our subject is rather solemn sounding, but alass far too often far from solemnly regarded one of american sovereignty. i'm not going to keep you long with an introduction, expect to point out as i used to point out to my friends that ref guys, we are a nation surrounded on the

east and west by the atlanta and pacific, as well as to the north and south by two to put it mildly, nonmilitant powers named canada and mexico. it takes a long and difficult time for any threat to sink into the national conscienceness. consider, four times in the 20th century this country engaged in long and/or costly wars. costly in men and money, i do not even speak of that so complicated in costly international engagement called the cold war. without any seriously audible national discussion of anything that might properly be called american sovereignty. why this? what i would for the most part call our national innocence, though there's no longer

anything innocent about it. why this has been the case. and what it has come to cost us is the subject of our final panel. i will introduce the panelist in the older in which they will speak to us after which if they wish, they can speak or ask questions of one another. that's something we haven't had here. and because the subject is waspism, i think perhaps that might be an opportunity for them. and then we will provide you with the opportunity to engage them. the day is long. we've had a very rich time of it. and i hope that you will find yourself to questions at that points and not speeches. because i think everybody will by then be full up to here.

[laughter] >> our first speaker will be michael mukasey, who was for some years a practicing lawyer send -- and who with is now a lawyer again as served for four years as u.s. district attorney and for 18 years served as the federal district judge for the southern district of new york, including tenure as chief judge of that court from 2000 to 2006. while on that court, as is so famously known, he presided among other cases over the criminal prosecution of omar abdel raffman and el saad, who's plot to blow up the world trade center, he was required to live, and i as a neighbor can testify

to this, as a former neighbor, i should regrettably say, he was required to live for some years under the daily and nightly protection of a gang of u.s. marshals p in 2007 he was appointed by george bush to the attorney generalship of the united states and in 2009, he most regrettably returned to civil life. i cannot say that he regrets it, but the rest of us have reason to, and every cay -- day more reason to. :

he now teaches at a fascinating young institution which i have only recently myself heard about. it's an institution of higher education. which is located in the empire state building. and is called kings college.

and i think we would all be very much interested to learn more about this institution. third on our panel is claudia rosette. she has been spending a great deal of time observing and reporting on that dark and dangerous would be burial place of american sovereignty called the united nations. nor has she so far as i am happy to remark and as you will plainly see, suffered any diminution in either vitality or, what they call in her profession, smarts, by spending so many hours listening to sd discussions or trying to understand the implications of documents in that dark place. how she does it, i confess to you, i cannot say. perhaps her early inoculations have nothing to do with it.

she joined the "wall street journal" in 1984, became the editorial director of asian wall street journal in 1996, spent time in india and moscow, was on han for the tiananmen square protest and in 1994 broke the story of the horror of the north korean labor camps. she later returned to the journal and she now writes, she does a weekly column for "forbes." she's also won the mighty pen award by the center for security policy and the eric brandell prize for excellence in opinion journalist. now, once, many years ago, one of my daughters, who was then, i don't know, 5 years old maybe, was looking at a book of more than 1,000 pages sitting on her father's desk. you know, he said to her, that book was written by your friend

and our friend carl, to which she replied, his hand must be very tired. well, if carl's hand was tired, what can we say about the hand of our fourth and fine panelist, mark steny. in addition to appearing regularly on the subject of politics in a wide variety of newspapers and magazines, both here and in britain and in canada, he is a drama critic, he is a scholar both of popular music, the musical theater and the arts generally. he is a tireless blogger. that's a new term. and maintains a website of his own called steyn online and is the author of several books, the most recent of which is "america alone:the end of the world as we

know it" he is in envy and admiration, called a writing fool. and now i will call on michael mukasey. >> thank you very much. i want to thank herb london for inviting me here. thank all of you for being here. i don't know about you, but i feel very much strengthened and empowered by what i have heard so far and my fondest wishes that you don't feel any less strengthened and empowered by the time i sit down. my assigned topic today, of course, in the context of american sovereignty, is a two-part question that asks, first, whether we can effectively thwart terrorist designs on the united states by employing present judicial

methods? that's the way the question is phrased. since the questioner obviously anticipates the correct answer to that one, the follow-up is, if not, what would i propose? in the interest of clarity, i thought what i would do is get out of the way, the die gregses i was planning to have so that i can present my topic in a straight line fashion and simply make two points before i answer the assigned questions. the first is that neither what we are today are called pren judicial methods, presumely meaning civilian courts, nor any alternative that i might propose or anybody that i have heard could propose can be the principle instrument to thwart terrorist designs on the united states. i remember back in the 1990s when i was walking up wall street with one of my then colleagues, the late john sprizo, a man not give ton understatement and at the time there were one of the several terrorist trials that had gone on during that period, was ongoing. he looked at the concrete barriers and the flack jackets and marshals carrying auto make

it weapons. he said in his characteristic in an understated way, what the hell are we doing here? this isn't a legal problem, it's a military problem. robert gates, our secretary of defense, has said famously that we can't kill our way out of this. there may be differing views about that. i can tell you we can't convict our way out of it either, either in civilian courts or in military courts. so where these issues get heard isn't going to resolve our struggle with islamic fanatics. the second point i want to make, and this was a point made by very capably by andy. is that the questions that i have been asked to deal with, the answers to those questions can be given in a democracy, only by the political branchs which is to say congress and the president and it has to be an answer that has the support or at least the grudging of the

nation. has to be an answer that doesn't identify the forum where the pros quings take place, but also questions of who it is we're up against, who it is we wish to punish and for what? and it is emphatic we not answer that should be provided by the judicial branch, and yet that seems to be where most of the action is, at least for the moment, as andy pointed out. now back to the assigned questions. the temptation is simply to say no to the first question, whether the judicial approach is the correct one and then to launch into a detailed description of some rub goldberg system that i could design, better than the one being used by the current administration. assuming you would describe what is happening as manifestation of the system which would make an interesting discussion. i don't think that would be fair to either you or the topic because i think we have to examine why the interest is -- why the answer is no to judicial methods in general, and specific as they are in place to deal

with the terrorist threat to this country. so the first subsidiary question to question number is, what is it we have in place today? the answer is not at all clear. as of today, what we have in place is that five people who are charged with planning the september 11, 2001 attack on this country, one of the people charged in the 1998 bombings of our embassies in kenya and tanzania who, until this past june, was being held at gaun tan mo and will be the defendants proceedings that are to be brought in civilian federal courts in new york, as to the september 11 and embassy bombings and in detroit as to the christmas day attempt to set off a bomb over that city. interestingly, the christmas day bomber, sorry, make that the alleged christmas day bomber -- sorry about that. has already been indicted. his case is in process.

the september 11th 2001, defendants, who had been charged in guantanamo before a military commission who was ready to start trial this past fall, had not been charged in a new york court where they had to be tried, because as far as we know the case is still being present d to a grand jury, which is yet to vote an indictment. the embassy bombings defendant likely would have been charged with participation and a good deal more, had he remained at guantanamo. but he was brought to the yund where indictment was pending against him arising from the bombings. four defendants have already been tried and convicted. as it happens, a fifth defendant who would have been tried for that bombing, was not tried for it because while he wasn< being held, he named one of his guards in an escape attempt and was tried for that instead.

he has since not been tried yet for the embassy bombings. to complicate matters still further, four detainees who had already been indicted in a civilian court for participating in the bombing of the "uss cole" are slated to be tried before a military commission, although it's anyone's guess where that trial will take place because the administration has committed to cloegz guantanamo, the state of the art facility that was built there according to their plan, if it goes forward, will not be used at all. how did we get here? well, i guess we should start by the laws of war. namely the geneva convention, which is a system of rules that is supposed to be designed to keep war within certain bounds. it's a system to which countries voluntarily adhere. that, is they take on the obligation to have their soldiers fight in uniform and with weapons openly carried to follow a recognized chain of command so that you can tell they are soldiers and that they

can be subject to discipline and held accountable if they break the rules. and also to force certain tactics including targeting civilians and using several weapons, poison gas and dumb dumb bullets. in return, the soldiers who obey the rules are entitled to be humanely treated if captured and not be are b required to disclose information, beyond their now familiar name, rank and serial number. as to those who fight as guerrillas and other irregulars, out of uniform, not following a recognized chain of command, possibly targeting civilians, they are not entitled to the protection under the geneva conventions and, in fact, can be charged with war crimes, put on trial before a military try bubal and if convicted, executed. indeed, the before the geneva conventions were adopted, the leading treaty had a very short

description of how they could be handled. said they could be handled summarily, which in military jargon means step against this walsh we'll be with you in a moment. military commissions have been used by this country even before the geneva conventions. president washington used them to try the rebels in the whiskey rebellion after the assassination of abraham lincoln, par tis pans in that plot, other than john wilkes booth, were tried before a military commission. as andy described, the story of the germans who landed in florida and long island, were tried by a military commission. it's an interesting sideline to that story. that when those people landed, they landed in uniform. they then buried their uniforms on the beach. now, that ordinarily would seem bizarre. i mean, that's the most vulnerable part of any operation of that sort when you're most likely to be captured. why would they stop and change their clothes and bury their

uniforms on the beach? because they understood that that was the most vulnerable part of the operation. it was then that they were most likely to be captured. this is not anything i know first hand or from any document. but the only credible explanation is that they wanted to be able to have at least a colorable argument that they were to be treated as prisoners of war because they were in uniform, rather than as unlawful combatants. so they landed in uniform then took the trouble to bury their uniforms and change into civilian clothes. even in those days, wearing a german uniform in east hampton would not have been regarded as a fashion statement. [ laughter ] contrast that with the reaction of sheik mu ham after he was captured by american troops. his reaction was, i'll see you in new york with my lawyer. we've come a long way since those germans landed and took the trouble to bury the uniforms

on the bench and>ñ the reactionf i'll see you in new york. i'm suggesting to you that this is not necessarily progress. i should also tell you, for those who may wish to be relieved, that he changed his tune a bit after he was questioned vigorously using what i think were unfortunately referred to as enhanced interrogation techniques. i say unfortunate because that's a flinch. there's no need to have flinched. he was questioned. proved to be a gold mine of information that is still useful. the advantages of military over civilian tribunals as andy pointed out, and as i think others have pointed out as well from the government's standpoint, is that they include rules that allow evidence to be received based on a simple and straightforward standard. is the evidence relevant? does it appear to be reliable? for example, if a soldier

captures someone who is not in uniform and is planting an ied, it might be acceptable to receive in evidence an affidavit from that soldier describing the circumstances rather than requiring him to be brought back from the battlefield to testify to it in open court and be cross-examined. also, if the soldier questions that defendant and gets admissions and other statements or others question him, those statements can be used before a military commission if evidence of them appears to be reliable, even if no miranda warnings are given. also, the military commission system gives the defendant a military lawyer who has received security clearance and there are procedures for handling classified information before such commissions that allow it to be used without compromising national security. the facility at guantanamo includes a multi-million dollar secure electronic system for handling classified information that can be maintained securely. such a facility exists in no court room in the yund. the civilian system which is designed for routine cases includes rules, some

constitutionally based, that do not permit out of court statements to be offered into evidence and requires strict adherence. it's a system based on the assumption that it's better for ten guilty defendants to go free than one innocent to be convicted because values that we refer to with a shorthand phrase due process including the right to a lawyer at all stages, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a speedy trial and the like are of overriding importance and cannot yield in any case in any way. the assumption underlying military commissions and the procedures used in such commissions putts much higher value on national security. and the practical consequence of that, of that, of course, is that when those cases are brought in civilian courts, a great deal of the evidence that could be used in military courts and even some of the charges that could be presented in military courts, cannot be presented in civilian courts, either because the evidence is

not admissible or because bringing the charges would require disclosure of classified information under conditions that could not assure it's being protected. in order to deal with the problem through any means other than civilians recourse, we're going to have to face up to the truth that national security is, in fact, at risk when we confront islamic terrorists. i thought we crossed that bridge after september 11th, 2001, but we seem to have re-crossed it in the other direction since. so in the interest of restating what others will describe much better and have described in more detail and a lot better, we are dealing with a phenomenon that is, in fact, a threat to national security because it is intended, at least in part, to show that our government cannot perform the most basic task of a government, which is protecting people and keeping them alive. once you say that, what is the argument for using civilian courts at all in these cases? i'm at something of a

disadvantage because i'm not a proponent of the use of civilian courts, but those who are make several arguments. first, they argue that we've used them in the past and they've been successful. welsh that's half right. we have used them in the past. and there have been convictions. but an absolute numbers, those convictions have, in fact, been few and they've come at enormous cost and burd ton the civilian court system, including not only the substantial cost of maintaining skwurt for all participants, including jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, judges, but with hind costs. the rules applied in terrorism cases are the same as the rules applied in routine criminal cases, whether they involve drug dealing or any of the other items of human folly that routinely get prosecuted in our courts. if rulings are made that tend to relax search and seizure standards, or standards requiring easy access to council because the judge is trying to avoid supressing evidence that's relevant and could convict a terrorist, that relaxed standard is going to be applied in

routine case as well, but the result that rulings that start out in terrorism cases can have the effect of influencing the standards applied in other cases to the detriment of criminal defendants. also, because rules of evidence and procedure and civilian cases are weighted in favor of defendants, there's far greater risk that sensitive information that should otherwise be kept confidential is released. either because the defendant has the right to conduct discovery or because a defendant has the right to conduct cross examination in which he presses to get information and tries to make it appear that the government is trying to hide something. in the case that andy tried before me involving the blind sheik and his merry men, the government was required to disclose, as it is routinely in cases where the indictment includes a conspiracy charge, a list of the co-conspirators.

indictments are generally drawn in language that says a, b, c through m or whatever an others to the grand jury, known an unknown. the government is required to specify who the other members of the conspiracy are, in part because theed a missability of some evidence depends on who's on that list and who isn't. and the government in that case served such a list and we later found out, years later nshg fact, that within weeks of the government serving that miss, the list included, by the way, the name of a then relatively unknown man named osama bin laden. that found its way into the hands of bin laden and told him, not only that his identity was known, but also the identity of all the others who were known as participants in the plot that was then being prosecuted. there have been other problems as well. the so-called 20th hijacker, who was supposed to be part of the

9/11 attack but was arrested on an immigration violation several weeks ago, pleaded guilty to participating in that plot and his sentencing proceeding alone took over a year. his case took four years. it's not done yet. and there isn't much comfort, even in the recent affirmative conviction by the 4th circuit court of appeals because the opinion sugg jeffed had he not pleaded guilty he might have entitled to access to a great deal of sensitive information to call other detainees as witnesses and turn the trial, as he did the sentencing proceeding, into a circus. that lesson has been learned by mohamed and the others scheduled to be tried in new york. kfm, as he's known, said he wanted to plead guilty when he thought he was going to be before a military commission where the opportunity for street theater is relatively limited, particularly in a guilt phase and instead to get right to the

sentencing phase. but when he heard that he was going to be tried in a civilian court, he immediately changed his mind, decided that he was not going plead guilty and go to trial. i would suggest that that may have been in large measure because he knows that included in his constitutional right to a lawyer is a constitutional right to represent himself. as he chooses to do that, he will have access to all of the information that a lawyer would have access to, plus he will have the biggest stage in the world on which to deliver whatever die tribe he chooses, unless and until he's controlled by a judge, which is a difficult thing to do. but what other arguments to proponents of civilian courts make? they argue, as the ambassador suggested, that when we put people in civilian courts, we uphold the rule of law. we give people better than they deserve. we're setting a wonderful example for the world. well, the short answer to that s the ambassador pointed out that we do not uphold the rule of law

by doing that. we, in fact, undermine the rule of law by saying that we have place, people subscribe to them, they get treated in a particular way, and if you don't subscribe to them and if you instead violate them, target civilians, you don't fight in uniform, you don't carry weapons openly, you commit atrocities and mass murder, not on do you get treated as a pow might get treated, you get treated even better because you get sent to a civilian court. you get a lawyer. you get the opportunity to get off. i'd suggiest to you that that is the rule of something, but law isn't what the something is. another variation on that argument is that we try unlawful combatants in some other court, either military tribunal or some specially established terror court, then we're going to establish two standards of justice. one involving constitutional protections and one not. well, yes.

but recall that if we're talking about unlawful combatants, we're talking about people who have dealt themselves out of the traditional protections or even the laws of war, let alone the laws of our courts, and it should be no embarrassment to take people who have chosen another standard for themselves and subject them to another standard. i'm among those who think that it's not an acceptable alternative, however difficult it may be, to hold people indefinitely, but i think it's easier to do that than to reward terrorists with better treatment than we give those who obey the laws of war. and now the question is, are military commissions the long-term answer for dealing with captured terrorists? as i said in my digression at the beginning, the definitive answer is one that should be given by the political branchs. as of now, military economyings

appear to be the on alternative game in town. but the question is, i guess, military commissions the most desirable alternative forum? as they're presently constituted, i wonder. first of all, the job of the military is to fight wars. it's not to run an alternative justice system. the way people advance in the military is by fighting wars. not by conducting -- not by participating in an alternative justice system. yes tsh military has a judge advocate's branch, but that's only as an adjunct to its war fighting mission. it's not a separate mission in itself. there may well be or develop a certain lack of enthusiasm in the military for becoming full-time jailors and executioners. although it's true that we have used military commissions before, we have, in fact, never used them on a long-term basis. i think the lack of enthusiasm i mentioned would eventually express itselves in a lack of performance. i have on intuition to rely on for that. it's fairly sound. if we have to have a system in

place long term it thoos be at least one that has access to the kind of talent and commitment that the justice system has available in its prosecutors and defense lawyers. if military economying s -- commission xhs continue they'll have access to such people. beyond that, i cannot give you the blue prin for an alternative forum. all ki do is say it has to be one that protects classified information, doesn't provide a propaganda stage for those who try to justify a religion-based ip pulse to kill us and yet permits us to distinguish those who have committed war crimes from those who have not. thank you very much. >> well, terrific to be with

you. thank you for the gracious invitation to be here with this splendid panel. these are people whose writing and whose work i have followed for a number of years. it's just a delight to be with them and meet them in person finally. i think it was john adams speaking about james madison. i may have my founders mixed up. i think it was adam on madison describing madison as a man who had the gift of silence. that madison knew when to speak and when to hold his tongue. as an italian-american from brooklyn, i don't have the gift of silence. my family, we shout first and ask questions later. i'm going to do my best to stay on time and be brisk. one of the great kro sifshs of national sovereignty that threatens the united states, i think, at this cultural moment is the assault on the concept of american exceptionalism. that's what i want to talk about. the relationship between american exceptionalism and the

ideas and ideals associated with that concept and national sovereignty. if there's nothing distinctively and supremely important about america's democratic ideals and institutions, if the united states is not much different than the united ash emritz, then there's no reason to reject the multiculturalism, no reason to be skeptical of international treaties and conventions, no reason to resist the collective will of the international community, whatever that is. right? foreign policy pundits have been sounding the death null of american exceptionalism for some time. boston university's andrew botchvicz for example seems to xhaut in the prospect in his book the limits of power, the end of american exceptionalism. so falling safe, right. the problem with this attitude is not only that it makes america more vulnerable to the corruption of the democratic

values and the loss of its sovereignty, it guarantees american indecision and weakness, weakness in the face of international aggression. it is almost certain to strengthen the hands of terrorists, dictators around the globe. the historical record, i think, is blindingly clear. the best hope for international security and the promotion of democratic ideals is when the united states is intellectually and morally sober about its role, its indispensable role, as the indispensable nation among nations. let's stroll back, if we could just for a minute, to the summer of 1945. the end of the war in europe, the war against japanese is still raging, but the end of the war in europe. now, remember, the military situation, the soviet army having belatedly joined the allied effort to defeat hitler, is occupied most of central an

eastern europe. joseph stalin, uncle joe, tieingening his communist grip over poland and most ominously, over germany. so, where are the united states and her democratic allies at this moment? well, the american and british forces are preparing to withdraw to discrete zones of occupation in germany and czech. they're making plans to demobilize their armies, right? within 18 months the united states would essentially complete the most rapid demobilization in history. the army would be cut from 8 million to 1 million men. the air force goes from about 200 to less than 50 effective combat groups. winston churchill, the last lion of europe at the time, sends a note to president truman, a message filled with anxiety. listen to churchill. i am profoundly concerned about the european situation. the newspapers are full of the great movements of the american armies out of europe.

the french are weak and difficult to deal with. what's changed? anyone can see, church it goes on, that in a very short space of time, our armed power on the continent will have vanished. surely, it is vital to come to an understanding with the russians before we weaken our armies mortally. the soviets, of course, are in a mood to test american resolve and they're in a position to do so. there are somewhere between 175 and 200 soviet divisions occupying the eastern region of germany. the american, british and french, between them, between them, have six divisions. six. so, big test comes in the summer of 1948. june 24th, soviets establish the blockade of the city of berlin. they shut down ground surface traffic that connects western

germany with the western controlled zones of the city. no food or fuel can make its way into west berlin. think about that. no food or fuel. by this time, truman's assessment of the soviet union has matured. he now views berlin as the heart of the struggle over germany and the key to the security of the rest of democratic europe. listen to truman. berlin has become a symbol of americas and the west's dedication to the cause of freedom. four days into the crisis, four days, he tells his cabinet that although he does not want to start a war with the soviets, he will not abandon the city. we are going to stay, he says, period. no one could accuse that democratic president of ditherring. truman proposes an air lift. massive round the clock air transport to supply the allies and citizens of berlin. almost no one in his cabinet

thinks the plan can work. the ma juror tif of his advisers think the united states should leave the city in the hands of the soviets. but truman finds the resolve to stay. and he finds the resolve because he understands what is at stake. listen to harry truman. communism attacks our basic values, our belief in goshgd the belief in the dignity of man and human life, our belief in justice and freedom, he said. it attacks our institutions that are based on these values. it attacks our churches, our guarantees of civil liberty, our courts, our democratic form of government. the great purpose of the united states, he insists, is to defend the spiritual values, the moral code against the vast forces of evil that seek to destroy them. close quote. truman recognized that the nature of the threat to american security and american sovereignty, he recognized

threat in part because he understood the great purpose of the united states. the berlin air lift began less than a week, less than a week after the soviet blockade. western pilots landing almost minute by minute to deliver 13,000 tons of goods per day. over the next year they would deliver 1.6 million tons of food and fuel, with the threat of soviet aggression always in the air. they don't know how this is gonna turn out, right? they don't have the hindsight of history. yet, they kept on, day after day, night after night, for 320 days. may 12th, 1949, the soviet union backs down, as stalin lifts the blockade. now, that is american leadership. hardly needs mentioning that truman did not seek approval from the u.n. security council in order to rescue berlin from soviet aggression. right? so here's the vital lesson.

this display of strategic insight and moral courage to stand down tyranny was inconceivable. inconceivable apart from a belief in american exceptionalism. and let me quote from the movie "princess bride" to underscore the point. inconceivable. it is this belief that has guided our gravest and wisest leaders in times of crisis. it is distressingly unclear whether president obama and his advisers possess the courage and wisdom to guide america during its own season of instability and threats. so what are we to do? i think our task is both a negative one and a positive one. first to the negative. let's say that we need to refute first we need to refute the claim that the united states is

just another arrogant power seeking imaginary monsters to destroy. we hear this all the time, don't we? in the left wing bloggers sphere and even some in the administration. just another arrogant power seeking imaginary monsters to destroy. let's stipulate. no nation has or should have the foreign policy of mother teresa. god bless her. god rest her soul. we can believe as if we live in a world of pipe dreams. there are real threats to civilized nations, as we heard today. there's unhappy fact keeps on intruding upon the obama administration like it did on christmas day on that delta flight over detroit. mr. obama and his cohorts remind me of the hobbits in "the lord of the rings." early on, even the dark lord makes clear his intention to devour anyone who resists his will. those hobbits they are just reluctant to leave the comfort

and face the world as it really is. just remain in front of the fireside with bilbo and friends. right? president obama loves to insist that he is under no illusions. uses that expression quite often, doesn't he? he's under no illusions in his foreign policy. well thsh is the same president who first insisted that the would be nigerian boerm was merely a disturbed individual acting on hi=q initiative. listen to president obama. this incident, like several that have proceeded, president obama said, democrnstrate -- than an isolated extremist. close quote. now, what it demonstrates, of course, is that the president is clinging -- there's a good obama word, clinging to denial. it is laughable. thank you. it is laughable that mr. obama claims the great viftian realist

as his favorite philosopher arch claim applauded by admirers like david brooks after he got his pulitzer prize peace prize award there. won go into that monstrosity, all right. the president, though, i think and some of his admirers should start reading neiber. mr. obama's bland admission that evil does exist in the world is a far cry from neiber's view that democracies must sometimes act in ways that seem to be at odds with their democratic ideals if they're to salvage any measure of earthly justice. when the nazi war machine began its march on europe, neiber chaft tiezed liberal elites about the exercise of power. listen. if hitler is defeated in the end, it will be because the crisis has awakened in us the knowledge that ambiguous methods are required for the ambiguities

of history. he wrote in 1940. then he goes on, let those who are revolted by such ambiguities have the decency and the consistency to retire to the monastery where midevil perfectionists found their asylum. likewise, liberals delight in neiber's critique of america's social an political failings. he was pretty tough on american domestic policies as a left leaning guy who ran as a socialist i think in 1933. he broke from the socialist crowd. he became one of the real hawks in the late 1930s. they forget neiber was contentious of liberal self-loeting toward american democracy and des poised the tactic of using america's sins to avoid confronting dangerous ideologies. listen again. when the mind is not confused by utopian ill lieuings, it is not difficult to recognize general achievements of justice. and to be under obligation to

tyranny and justice. it is sheer moral perversity to equate the failings of american democratic society with the degradations of totalitarian states. yet this, friends, as you well know, is exactly the posture of various liberals who claim that the ambitions of osama bin laden find their parallel in those of george w. bush and his democracy agenda. both figures, according to others, are quote, intent on radically changing the middle east, which brings them into a, quote, defacto collaboration that causes great mischief. yes. the american presidents and the leader of al qaeda and a collaborative effort in mayhem. that's what we're up against, right? that's the negative task. to insist that the united states

and the west are engaged in a fierceem struggle against a murderous totalitarian ieology and to expose and to shame and marginalize this slander, which is really all it is, a slander against the united states, and its motives. that's the negative. now the positive task. we need to revive the narrative of america as the bulwark of freedom in the world today. the bulwark of freedom and democracy. the story line, i well know and understand, has taken a beating in recent years, but the people who embody the cynical view of america are cut off from the real world of human need and human suffering. ordinary people around the world -- think about this. ordinary people, from every continent, from intimately familiar with american

generosity and decency and democratic values. media elites and their emotionally unhinged allies in hollywood will not tell you their stories. but these ordinary people are witnesses of america's influence for good in the world. yes, for good. the exiles from muslim majority states who find in america a place where freedom of speech an pree dom of religion are pillars in a democratic society. families displaced by natural disasters, whose hope is restored because american relief workers are the first on the scene. the victims of the hiv virus in africa, whose lives are reclaimed by medicines and clinics supported by american taxpayers. and what about the people of iraq? who live in constant dread of torture chambers and mass graves. where the women of afghanistan, who, without the intervention of united states military, would have no hope, no hope of

escaping the radical, brutalities of the taliban. we don't hear much about their lives now, but the american soldiers and the civilians working in those countries will tell you that support for their efforts to rebuild these broken societies is strong. we need to revive this narrative of american freedom and democracy when abraham lincoln unforgetably called the last best hope of earth. we must tell better stories about america. no american president, of course, understood this concept better than ronald reagan. in reagan's farewell address to the nation january 11th, 1989, i'm sure many of you remember it. reagan reflected on the image of the united states that had guided him during his eight years in the oval office. think about this when you think about what image of america is guiding president obama and his inner circle. he tells the story of a sailor

on the carrier midway, patrolling the south china sea during the 1980s. the sailor notices on the horizon a leaky little boat. crammed inside are refugees from indo-china, hoping to get to america. midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and to safety. as the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spotted the sailor on deck, stood up and called out to him. hello, american. hello, freedom man. if we stop believing in america as the best hope for human rights and human dignity, the best hope, at least on this side of eternity, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when our freedoms begin to evaporate. american sovereignty depensd on american exceptional oich. this exceptionalism depensd on a spirit of resolve against what

lincoln called the silent artillery of time. the silent artillery of time. listen to lincoln. at what point then is the approach of danger to be expected, he asked? i answer, if it ever reach us, it must sprung up amongst us. it cannot come from abroad. if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. as a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide. now, there is no reason, no reason, to assume this bleak outcome for the united states and the cause of freedom. think back with me once again 1948 when the united states took the lead in creating new institutions to promote democratic rights and international security. no nation pushed harder for a universal declaration of human rights, a moral standard that could transcend cultural and political differences. listen to the judgment of the

lebanese delegate to the newly created united nations guiding charles malik. he was a student of the american founding. malik is reflecting here on his experience in america and helping to create an international bill of rights. listen to malik. the american spirit of freedom, tolerance, largeness of heart and profound respect for individual human beings permeated and suffused our atmosphere all around. it was an intangible thing, but a most real thing all the same. we invibe the spirit in restaurants, in the street, in parties, but above all nsh dealing with and in talking to american men and women of every stripe on every social level, he writes. i cannot imagine a document on human rights and fundamental freedoms arriving in our age without the sustaining support

of this spiritual background. i cannot imagine the declaration coming to birth under the ages of any other culture emerging dominant after the second world war. too many people in this country and in this current obama administration, it seems to me, have no knowledge of this america and their ignorance of this is historical narrative is willful and it's shameful. they appear to live in the cramped, cranky confines of the moral agnostic. and they must be resisted. they must be resisted for america's sake, for the sake of the cause that forms the heart of a creed. the god-given equality of every person, government by consent, the rule of law, the universal appeal of liberty, yes, america, the great republic as the indispensable nation still. thank you.

applause >> thank you, for a lovely introduction. it's wonderful to see all of you. i can't tell you how encouraging. and i just wanted to say, so many ideas have been floating through my head listening to these kwonderful talks today. one of them from andy's question of anecdote about 1942. andy, when fdr dealt with the eight germans who came ashore in florida, he an harry truman had not yet created the united nations. i was trying to imagine, if you want to amuse yourself in sort of a horrible way, how -- could we have won world war ii if the united nations had been in existence while it was going on?

imagine getting approval for the normandy landing, the security council, the human rights commission would have come forward to denounce what we were gonna do. anyway, herb has given me a really difficult question for this segment. will the channelling of american foreign policy through the u.n. adversely affect american interest? if so, how? thank you, herb. tough one. well, i can reply with just one image, really, and that is the u.n., like very often tells you more than it means to in its symbolic gestures and in its documents. not always what it intends to. and what herb's question brought to mind is what i call the luxemborg gun. on the grounsd of united nations, which are going through a $2 billion renovation up the road, so things are in a bit of

disarray. but normally on the ground, which you're paying the lion's share of. there are sort of exhibits that are supposed to represent peace. one of these exhibits is this enormous gun, where the barrel has been tied into a knot. now, this is supposed to mean disarmament, the weapons have been beaten into not guns. my husband, who spent 30 years in the british royal artillery said if you actually tried to use that, it would blow your own hand off. well, that's kind of what trying to use the u.n. for foreign policy is like. okay? it's a complete misconception. if you want to arrive at peace, you don't tie your gun barrels into knots. you point them in the right direction. so, yeah, the u.n. is not really a good avenue for u.s. foreign policy. let's figure why.

let me give you a boilerplate. we need some of that in everything. yes, it will harm american interest. which is fundamentally which the u.n. is. it is an enormous extremely sort of respectable in some quarters, scam, by masquerading as full of no blame. any great scam convinces you that it is for your own good while, it is picking your own pocket. in this case stealing our freedoms. busy america, with endless fake crisis and false fixes, while real dangers are maturing to real attacks on this country and america's allies. the retreat of freedom around the globe certified yesterday when by freedom house and the kind of real war that the u.n. was founded in theory to prevent. you can take it as emblem mattic that while iran has been racing toward the bomb and skipping the deadlines and thumbing its nose the grand emergency for which we all watch the u.n. convene in copen hagan was climate change accompanied by the promise that

if we simply turned over onto the umth generation our right to exhale, the u.n. would arrange to fine tune the climate, the temperature of the plan tote the second decimal point. it's the second decimal point i like. that's very u.n., okay? it's also worth noting that over the past two generations, what has been the main force for dealing with the currently very urgent problem of proliferation, or nonproliferation in the middle east, it has not been the united nations. it has been the israeli air force. which dealt with the iraq reactor an most recently in 2007, took out a syrian north korean joint production on the euphrates river with the iaea saying why didn't you tell us about that before you blew it up? the answer was, you wouldn't have let us blow it up. as far as the u.n. itself, which

president obama likes to describe and his ambassador to the u.n. and his administration, as the line -- this is actually straight out of the u.n.'s own play book some years back. indispensable, if imperfect, okay? we can live without it, just has these flaws. what are these imperfections that we sort of have to choke down in order to use the u.n.? the biggest and most important thing to understand is not any of the endless details which we could go on for the rest of this week telling anecdotes, doing the biology of the u.n. problems. it's this. the united nations is a collective. okay. that's how it's structured. that's how it was designed. it may sound and look kind of like our democratic government. they have votes. they have different branchs. they have a secretary-general who kind of looks like the president. they have a general assembly kind of like congress. they have a security council. that's kind of like the courts. none of that applies.

the better model, years ago when i was going to work in the former soviet union, a business man who had spen a lot of time there gave me a lot of good advice. going see lot of things that have labeled you recognized. they'll say things like bank, hospital stair case. wait. look. at the u.n., for all the labels that we recognize, it is fundamentally a collective. there are no checks and planses. there are no sort of venues for accountability. it's an organization that operates with immunities across jurisdictions. there is no place where it actually reports to some final higher reasonable authority of law. it reports to itself. what is itself? it started out as 51 member states in 1945 after the german thing. and today it is 192 member

states. and the secretary-general -- the whole thing was set up in the most amazing way, having had the wisdom to, one, win world war ii. the founding fathers of the u.n. then saddled us with the makings of world war -- what number is norman up to right now? four, five? okay. okay. and there is no place where the buck stops. there is no mechanism for impeaching the secretary-general. you can't remove him if you want to. there's actually no way to stop him from doing what he really wants to, especially sort of social shunning or try to cut off his budget. it's all back room maneuvering. there is no final accountability. there is no real system of law that applies to the u.n. itself. there is simply, how much money can it take in, in order to do whatever the people involved can cook up? think animal farm, not some sort of democratic body.

and that's what you're trying to funnel anything through. how do we see this in practice? look at the general assembly lineup just this past september. that was a good one. after president obama's speech insisting that no nation could or should put itself above another, he was followed by muammar qaddafi. later in the day came ahmadinejad. they were top billing. the foreign ministers of burma, syria, korea. all of this is interesting to cover. if you watch, it's more than just show. when you go to the u.n. to get something done, you have to negotiate with these people. because they all do have a vote in the general assembly. and there are real members of the five permanent seats on the

security council. qaddafi went on to the security council meeting where he had one of the ten rotating

really precisely nowhere at this point. it takes years to refer any real problem to relevant bodies, as they call it. you end up with a problem that gordon chang outlined earlier today where china sits on the security council says i don't really think we need sanctions right now. while they're going through their shadow play, the u.s. has signed on to this deal. so what does the u.s. say? well, what can we offer china so we can get them to come our way? this thing is being framed by u.n. procedure, as well as realities that would be difficult enough without that. then there's a second level that's just important to note because the whole thing is sort of a mirage. u.n. sanctions. that sounds really official. how does the u.n. enforce its sanctions? what happens when a country violates them? countries police themselves in the u.n. system, okay? so when syria says, we are -- syria supposed to make sure no syrians violate u.n. sanctions.

that seems as syria during the final months of sadam sitting on the security council which was the iraq sanctions committee. security council doubles as the sanctions committee. and while everyone was having the debate over what to do about hussein, syria was just amazing. the regime was smuggling weapons to iraq, divvying up saddam with money skimmed out of relief, serving as a backer for funs as well as various al qaeda folks and providing services -- how about this one. it gets overlooked. as a broker for weapons deals with north korea and saddam. okay. course, the u.n. is much more than security council. there's a whole raft of agencies out there. it has become over the years a kind of neo colonial empire. when the u.s. goes to do business through this raft of agencies, which are, in fact, how we said in aid to places like north kor